> HowardPhoto wrote:
>
>>The 90 macro was listed in a OM brochure I found dating to 1986. But I
>>think
>>I first saw one in 1984. Isn't it one of the sharpest Zuiko lenses ever
>>made?
>>
>>
> Not closer than about 1:5 or so it isn't.
>
> This may be a minority opinion, but I know I'm not alone in it.
>
> The 50/3.5 is considerably better in actual macro country. I assume the
> 80/4 and 50/2 are also actual macro lenses. I've seldom used the 135/4.5
> that close, but I've not experienced the same disappointment either.
> It's not awful or anything like that, and it's quite nice at normal
> distances. But when you start slipping down toward and then past 1:2, it
> is noticably less sharp than my 50/3.5s, Tamron 90/2.5 and Kiron 105/2.8.
>
> I really tried to like it. :-( I'll stick with the 85/2 and/or 100/2.8
> for general purpose use. They are really hard to beat in that general
> focal length range, small, light, sharp.... I had a pleasant time
> shooting with the 85/2 and OM-4 on an overcast
> Worldwide_Picture_Day_2006. Still a mighty fine combo.
>
> Moose
>
It is not about the sharpness. It's about the bokeh. The 90/2 is the
smoothest lens I have ever used. I miss it.
Tom
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|