On 4/9/07, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
You sold it to Bill? <g>
> 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
Well, maybe just a bit touchy. But my teasing was more of the
needling type, so what should I have expected?
The main thing is that you are happy with your decision. Truth be
known, I have a Viv 100/2.5 that goes 1:1 (a Kiron, most likely).
It's pretty dang good stopped down just a little.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|