Joel Wilcox wrote:
> I feel the same way. However, whenever this subject comes up, there
> are is usually a chorus of posts saying the Tamron 90/2.5 is just as
> good at 1/4 the price. But since I'm fortunate enough to have the
> Zuiko, the Tamron is too rich for my blood.
I'm one of those naysayers, but I wasn't going to say anything here.
Michael's love of the 90/2's color saturation and bokeh don't set me off.
My gripe was that I already had those qualities in the 85/2, but based
on all the glowing comments here, and the word "MACRO" on the lens and
in it's descriptions, I thought I was buying a superior macro lens with
more working distance than the 50/3.5 and at least as good performance.
The copy I got from Tom S. was a quite lovely lens - down to about 1:4.
Beyond that, it simply wasn't in the running with the 50/3.5, Tam
90/2.5 (which I had figured to sell). and Kiron 105/2.8. Great color?
Sure. Great bokeh? sure. Nice and sharp down to normal close focus
distances? Sure. A great macro lens? No. So maybe I got a bad one,
although is was in excellent shape, with no sign of damage, and worked
very well at 'normal' distances. I really didn't need both an 85/2 and a
90/2 with essentially the same working characteristics (and, I'll admit,
I was irritated), so I sold the bigger, heavier, more expensive one, the
90/2, on to another list member where I hoped it would be better
appreciated. I think it ended up spending some time on a FF Canyon.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|