Paul Martinez wrote:
> ..........
> As much as I love mine, I came across a near new 100/2.8 Vivitar macro (the
> Kiron one) - and had to buy it. I've been testing it the last couple days
> against the Vivitar Series1 90/2.5. It's very close, but the 90/2.5 is
> better for 1:1 macro. Now I have a hard to find, near new, and excellent
> performing Vivitar (Kiron) 100/2.8 Macro I need to sell. It's a better
> performing lens at normal distances (doesn't have the poor contrat/ghosting
> issue), does 1:1 without an adapter, and has a built-in hood. This lens is
> as great as it's reputation. Even at 1:1 the difference in quality between
> it and the 90/2.5 is very minimal. I shot both under varied conditions with
> my SLR/c and pixel peep'd at 100 and 200% to see the small differences. I
> guess I'm just a fool for the old beast of a macro.
>
I have both the Tamron 90/2.5, early 49mm filter ring version, and the
Kiron 105/2.8. I've done some testing of them, the Zuiko 50/3.5 and
Tamron 90/2.8 Di in EF mount on the 5D.
One conclusion I came to is that these lenses perform differently at
different repro ratios and apertures. You cannot generalize from
performance at 1:1, for example, to performance at 1:2. I found the MF
Tamron and Kiron to be a stand-off at 1:2. There are different qualities
to the images, but I can't say one is better than another. The 50/3.5
was outstanding at 1:2 and still good, but not the best, at 1:1.
Best overall performer at both 1:1 and 1:2 was the latest Tamron in AF
mount for EOS. It also hit its optimum performance at wider apertures
than the MF lens, which can be good or bad, depending on what you are
trying to do.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|