All depends on what you are trying to do with the lenses and which ones
they are. All of the many 90mm macros for OM mount are extremely sharp
and contrasty. Thus they are not great portrait lenses. I think you
joined after Albert's trauma with too sharp portraits of his gf and
other women friends with a Tokina 90/2.5. The 100/2.8 is generally a
rather felicitous portrait lens but would be rather poor for flat field
copy work. It seems to get along very well with human skin. The lenses
seem to me to each excel at different things. If the 85/2 is you choice
for portraiture, the 100/2.8 could indeed be unnecessary.
I can't get all that excited about the 90/2 (of course, I've never used
one). All that size and weight to get speed that will not be useful for
macro, as it will have paper thin DOF. Almost all of the close focus
work I do is at f8 and smaller apertures. Natural subjects have depth.
Also, like everyone else, Oly calls 1:2 macro, but it is just the doorway.
I use both a 50/3.5 and a Tamron SP 90/2.5 macro lenses because my copy
stand doesn't go very high, so I switch lenses depending on the size of
the subject. Otherwise, I don't think I would miss the 50/3.5. I also
like the fact that the Tamron becomes a 180/5 that focuses directly to
1:1 with 2x adapter. Great stand off distance for nature shots.
Moose
gordross@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Hi Z's
>
>While we're on this thread...I'm considering a 90mm macro, but I would then
>sell my 100mm/2.8 and my 50mm/3.5. I would keep my 85mm/2.0. Good trade-off?
>What is the opinion, is my rationale sound?
>
>
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"
|