David Irisarri wrote:
> ... OM Zuiko 90/2 hasn´t got any ED element and no other lens on the earth
> can beat it!
>
Here I must disagree.
> I have scanned some pictures with my LS-4000 ED and my Ektachrome E-100S
> slides were razor sharp!!! Bokeh is charming!
>
> You have some thumbs here:
>
> http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/index_1.html
>
> Hope you like them.
>
I do indeed like them. And I appreciate your enthusiasm for a lens you
love. However:
- It is simply impossible to judge anything more about lens quality some
of the bokeh on the size images you have posted.
- Not everyone who uses a 90mm macro lens uses it primarily for
portraiture. When I bought a 90/2, I already had Tamron 90/2.5, Kiron
105/2.8 and Zuiko 50/3.5 & 135/4.5 macros. My experience was that the
90/2 was a wonderful lens down to about 1:4. Below that, it was simply
not as sharp as the others; distinctly poorer at 1:2. I am not the only
one on the Oly list over the years to have this experience.
While the 90/2 is wonderful for what you use it for, I think your
blanket statement that "... no other lens on the earth can beat it!" is
simply untrue. to the extent that anyone reads your praise and buys
Oly's rating of the lens as a macro lens and their statement " The
exclusive Olympus focus aberration correction mechanism guarantees first
class picture sharpness all the way from minimum focus to infinity."
they will be fooled into buying something less suited for macro than
other, generally less expensive, alternatives.
- "... no other lens on the earth can beat it for portrait photography!"
might be closer to accurate. Again, though, many list members over the
years have done direct comparisons of the 90/2 with other lenses.
Without digging into the archives, i distinctly recall the late, and
much missed, Walt comparing the 90/2 to a Vivitar 90/2.8, 1:1 macro for
landscape work. Walt was an excellent photographer and careful worker.
His conclusion was an absolute toss-up for color, sharpness and bokeh.
He said there were subtle differences in the images, but that neither
one was clearly superior.
- The 90/2, which I'd been wanting for years, simply added nothing for
me when I finally got one. Excellent portrait and landscape lens, but I
already had the also wonderful 85/2, just that little bit soft wide open
for portraits, very sharp from F2.8 and with famously good bokeh - and
which is smaller and lighter. The 85/2 also has a floating element group
"ensuring superior image quality even at close distances.". Others on
the list say it is excellent with extension tubes. I don't know from
personal experience, as I use a macro lens for macro.
The 90/2 was also a so-so macro lens, and I already had better. So I
sold it on to another list member who was not a macro person and seemed
to like it. So, from my perspective, super lens for many uses. Best for
all? No.
Again, I do love the images you make with it, both this set and
previously posted ones. I'm glad you have a lens with which you are so
happy It didn't work for me. *Cada perico a su estaca, cada changa a su
mecate.
Moose*
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|