I've never done any rigorous testing, but my impression of the 50/2
agrees with Gary Reese's results, that it's at least as sharp - if not
sharper than the 50/3.5. I've never used any of the macro 90's, so
can't help you there, but in terms of handling the 50/2 is a lot like
the 100/2, though maybe a bit easier to get good results with. The
bokeh of the 50/2, while better than the 50/3.5, is still not as nice
as the 85/2 or 100/2. It's now the 50mm lens that I use most often,
and if you can find one at a good price, I'd certainly recommend it.
Mark
Brian Swale wrote:
Hi folks,
I'd like to hear about members' experience with some specific macros,
if I
may:
I just missed out ( a miss is as good as a mile) on getting a Zuiko
50mm f/2
macro; sort of locally (not this city, but this country). Problem was
I waited
until I obtained a copy of the Pop Photo test for it. I shouldn't have
waited. It's
still coming as I have had to get it on Library interloan, and it
could be a
couple of weeks.
So I thought I'd ask you all, those of you who have ever used one of
these
macro lenses, how you'd rate it for
sharpness / resolution; contrast; and colour rendition:
versus the Zuiko 100/2;
versus the Zuiko 90/2
and versus the
Tamron 90 macro (3 versions to choose from)
Tokina 90 macro
Sigma 90 macro
Cheers, Brian
< 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 >
|