Well, these are very tough questions. The 100/2 is probably sharper than the
90/2 but immeasurably to my eye. It goes to, I believe, 1:5 where the 90/2
goes to 1:2 (Did I get that right)? The 100/2 is really TOO sharp for me
and the results in portraiture are more pleasing to me with the 100/2.8 or
90/2 (I actually prefer the 90/2).
The 85/2 is harder to quantify. The results are certainly in the league,
quality wise, with any of the lenses being discussed, including the 100/2.
Certainly beyond my eyes. The 85/2 adds the fact that it is LITTLE. Really,
really little. Barely bigger than a 50/1.4 and smaller than the 100/2.8
(although not by much). So, you get a little lens that is smaller than the
100/2.8, as good as the 100/2, uses 49mm filters and is a stop faster than
the 100/2.8.
Let's face it, I am going to cut my OM collection way back. The 90/2 and the
85/2 are going to be on the keeper list for quite awhile. The 90/2 and the
4T will be on the permanent list.
Tom
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?
< 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 >
|