While the viv 90f2.5 is far from perfect it was well reknown for resolution
and 'bookeh'. I find your comments rather surprising. If anything I would think
the area the 100f2 would differ would be in contrast...
Alan
>>
>>Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:05:18 -0400
>>From: "Fast Primes" <fast_primes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron
>>
>>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
< 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 >
|