When I came into possession of a NIB 90/2 Zuiko macro a few weeks
ago, I promised to do some comparison test shots with it and the
90/2.8 Tamron macro. I did that, but since the results were less
than startling, I haven't bothered to report until now. I'll not
be posting any pictures, either, because there's nothing that
could be scanned, pixelized and down-sized enough to scoot through
the electricity that would still be in any way profoundly
elucidating or revealing in an evaluation made on the miserable
viewing medium of a computer monitor.
The test shots were made on Provia 100F with an OM-4Ti on a
Manfrotto 405 geared head atop a Manfrotto 3221 tripod, using
either the self timer, a T10 ring flash, or a T45 flash off
camera. I made the observations that follow through use of an 8x
Cabin loupe, a 20x Peak loupe (plastic and not all that good, but
still sometimes revealing) with the slides spread out on a 13x17
in. Knox light box, and by projection to a 50x50 in. matte screen.
(1) One of these lenses is not a true 90mm lens. Shooting from
identical film-to-subject distances, the Tamron covers a slightly
larger field of view. The difference is only a couple of
millimeters horizontally, but it looks like, if the Zuiko is a
true 90mm lens, then the Tamron is about 88mm, or if the Tamron is
90mm, then the Zuiko is about 92mm. This is a difference so
inconsequential I considered not even mentioning it.
(2) The Zuiko is slightly warmer than the Tamron. No surprise.
And when I say "slightly," that?s exactly what I mean. I guess
it's that Zuiko glow we all love. Keeps down the need for warming
filters.
(3) Neither lens is distinguishable from the other in terms of
sharpness and/or contrast. I see absolutely no difference in
either area. And I looked hard!
(4) And now to bokeh. Since this is so important to some folks, I
took a series of shots with backgrounds from mere millimeters to
many feet beyond the zone of sharp focus. And I got just exactly
what I expected from a pair of lenses of the same focal length and
with nine-blade diaphragms: Absolutely, positively, no doubt about
it, there is not one iota of difference in the bokeh. This just
confirms my belief that bokeh is dependent on focal length and the
shape of the iris and nothing else. There is no magic Zuiko glass
that creates wonderful bokeh. The bottom line is that both lenses
produce really fuzzy and smooth bokeh, about as good as it gets.
And one further observation. As I threatened to do, I did a
different series of test shots with the 100/2 and the 90/2 Zuikos,
and these show that the 100/2 is definitely sharper than the
90/2. That's why it, along with the 50/2 and the 21/2, are my
favorite Zuiko primes. Get them while you can, if you can. But
you can?t have mine!
Some have complained that the 100/2 is just too sharp. IMNSHO,
there is no such thing as a too sharp lens. If I believed that to
be true, then I'd have to rid myself of my MF gear and those
Planars and Symmars and Super Angulons, et al.
If you have to photograph unattractive or zitty folks and want to
cut down on the amount of ugly getting through, then stick an old
filter on the front and smear a pinky's worth of nose grease or
Vaseline on it. Or take off your panty hose and stretch them over
the lens. Or buy one of the many soft-focus filters available
(Tiffen makes some really good ones). Shoot wide open. Better
still, make friends with prettier people.
Saying a lens is too sharp is like saying someone's too rich or
too nice. Or, if you're talking about me, too intelligent and too
good looking. It's just nonsense. And so is some of this.
YMMV :-)
Walt
< 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 >
|