Joel Wilcox wrote:
> This lens being the basis for your frequent claims that your Tokvivron
> 90/2.5 is just as good as the Zuiko at a fraction of the cost? I am
> now inclined to believe you. ;^)
>
Who knows? It was minty when I bought it and never showed any problems.
And I peered in, looked and shook to see if anything was wrong. Knowing
who I sold it too, it's also possible that it encountered an untoward
event later.
Yes, I did see the smiley, but I still must be touchy about the 90/2. I
listened for years to all the praise about this magic lens and felt
inferior with my Kiron 105/2.8 and Tammy 90/2.5. I finally pony up for a
nice one, and get a really great lens for infinity to about 1:4 or so
that also happens to be decent to 1:2, but not outstanding. But I bought
it for macro!
When I first posted about this, I got missives from 2 or 3 members, at
least one off list, agreeing that they had the same experience with the
90/2. And Walt has weighed in with his test results showing no
difference, even in bokeh, compared to one of the 1:1 90/2.8s, Tammy, I
seem to remember.
So y'all go on lovin' yours, I'm quite happy mine has moved on. The
Tammy plastic fantastic 90/2.8 AF Di is the best I've used yet. Fancy
new glasses and aspherical surfaces really do work. But it doesn't beat
the 50/3.5 at 1:2 or the 90/2.5 at 1:1 by more than a hair or so.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|