Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron

[Fast Primes]

Hi Tom and Walt,

   I'm wondering if you ever shot the OM 90 against any of the popular 
non-OM macros--Tamron, Vivitar, etc. With it's ability to focus to 2 feet or 
so, the OM100F2.0 is already a quasi-macro and it was using it as such, that 
I became interested in real macro.  I think it is the visibly superior 
"bokeh" which causes me to still prefer the 100F2.0 over the Vivitar S1 90 
for semi-macro shots. I'd be interested in knowing whether the Zuiko 90 
still has that special "something" over the Tamron. I'm coming to the 
reluctant conclusion, that if I stay interested in macro, I may have to 
re-acquire the Zuiko 90!
fast_primes

> From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:49:30 -0400
> From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron
>
> I don't think the 90/2 is sharper than the 100/2, in fact I think the
> opposite. That's kind of why I like it. The 100/2 is so sharp that 
> portraits
> didn't seem flattering.
>
> Tom
>
> > I've also got the 100/2 Zuiko.  It's one of my favorites.  It gets
> > used a lot shooting landscapes, nearly as much as all the wide
> > angles combined.  I'll include it in my comparison of the two
> > macros.  If the 90/2 is sharper than the 100/2, then I'll have to
> > try it against the 50/2 Zuiko, which I consider the best of the
> > Zuikos -- at least the best of the ones I've got.
> >
> > Walt
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

< 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 >