I suppose one man's Kiron 105/2.8 is another man's Tamron 90/2.8, which goes to
1:1 all by its bare-nekkid self, which, dare I say, on an E-1 is kinda like a
180/2.8, going all the way to -- could it be? Well, maybe not really, but it
kinda looks like it. :-)
The Zuiko 90/2 works great on the E-1, but pardon the heresy when I say the
Tamron wins in terms of size, weight, and range, while giving up nothing that I
can see in the optical department. They both have nine-blade diaphragms, and
even the bokeh is the same: splendifferous almost always.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--snip--
> I keep getting tempted by the 80/4, because it's a Zuiko and because it
> works with the 65-116. So far, I've been able to resist, realizing that
> I wouldn't really use it after some initial play. Really, if I had only
> the Kiron 105/2.8 and 50/3.5, I would seldom really miss the other macro
> stuff. The Kiron does pretty much anything the 135/4.5 and 80/4 do, and
> without needing any accessories to do it. The 50/3.5 is important too,
> simply because my copy stand isn't very tall, so covering large areas
> needs a shorter fl.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|