Thanks José, lot of nice info there. Sounds like the main difference is the
ED glass, which the 100/2 shares with the 90/2 and 35~80/2.8 in the shorter
ranges... given that, it seems like the image quality of the 90/2 and 100/2
should be the same, and therefore that the 90/2 macro would be the better
choice... is this true or am i missing something else?
Tom said:
"I like the 85/2 better than either 100 "
Do you find the image quality the same with the 85/2 and 100/2 and 90/2, or
does the size/convenience of the 85/2 win over any quality differences that
do exist? I suppose one way of asking the same question is, at what size
enlargement would you see a difference between pictures taken with ED glass
(90/2, 100/2) and the 85/2?
<paste regarding 100/2 from:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/100mm.htm
>
Focusing features floating rear elements to counter and suppress distortion
to absolute minimal level. While Extra-Low Dispersion (ED) glass and special
dispersion glass with high refractive index and low dispersion optical
properties are used in the front lense elements to provide extremely high
resolution and contrast images. The extra-low dispersion glass ("ED") with
superior chromatic-aberration-correcting properties, enables secondary
colour spectrum in particular, blue and red light rays be brought to focus
at the same plane to offer images with crisps, sharp details and faithful
colour reproduction
</paste>
RickM
>Rick in the FAQ'S of LHawkins there are very useful links....of one of them
I found this :
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/
zuiko/htmls/100mm.htm a very good article for your question
>José A.
< 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 >
|