In a message dated 3/8/2004 7:01:44 PM Central Standard Time, robhar@xxxxxx
writes:
The 35-105 is an orange in with the
apples...but I'm curious (other than a couple stops) what I'd be giving
up.
The 90/2 does 1:2 macro, the 35-105 does 1:5, the 85/2 gets to 1:7.
I have all three of the lenses you are inquiring about and you have it pegged
correctly. you are comparing apples to oranges.
When I use the 35-105mm it is usually when I don't really have a clue as to
what I will be shooting or I know I'm doing a party and will need a little
variety in focal lengths. When I'm using either of the other two lenses, I
will
generally know exactly what I'm going to be shooting. It might be portraits or
macro.
Now, to not answer your question a little further and taking you at your word
that price is a consideration, I would get the 35-105mm and then get a Tamron
SP 90mm f2.5 for the things the other two lenses would do for you. If you
want to increase the overall versatility of your kit, get a set of automatic
extension tubes (either Olympus, Vivitar or some other brand). You will find
yourself using them with things other than just your macro lenses. I had a
25mm
mounted between my camera and the 400mm Tamron yesterday.
Unless you have all the Zuikos and just want to fill in a gap, having the
90mm f2 and 85mm f2 is redundant.
You ask about what you would give up between the lenses. The obvious answer
in folding green.
On a tight budget, my vote goes to the Tamron 90mm f2.5 (49mm version) or the
either the 90mm Tamron AT-X or 55mm version of the Tamron f2.5. This lens
being in addition to the 35-105mm Zuiko. Bill Barber
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|