It's interesting, because in the same situation, I sold the 100/2. Part of
it is that I shoot a lot of flowers and the 90/2 is just amazing. Can't
really explain it all though.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fast Primes" <fast_primes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron
> Hi Walt,
>
> I once had both the 90F2.0 Macro and 100F2.0 OM lenses. While, I found
> no obvious differences in their respective optical performance, the
> distinctly smaller 100F2.0 was the lens I decided to keep and sold the
> bigger 90. A few years later, I found myself plunging deep into
> macro--seriously shooting flowers and butterflies and such for the first
> time in my life. Along the way, I acquired a Vivitar Series 1 90F2.5.
> However, while the 90 is very sharp, there is still "something" that the
> 100F2.0 does better. I will be interested in your observations of the OM
and
> Tamron 90s.
>
> fast_primes
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|