WayneS wrote:
> ... The 90/2 is OK, but it had fogging problems with longer exposures.
I was seriously disappointed with the 90/2. Perfectly lovely from about
1:4 to infinity. Simply not competitive with my other macros from 1:4 to
1:1. Given that it's larger, heavier and more expensive than the 85/2, I
passed it on to another list member. And yes, I had said this about it
before offering it for sale.
> ... Best lenses in my book: later 21/2, 24/2.8, 50/2, 35-80/2.8, 100/2 and
> certain later 50/1.4. If into longer lengths, the 180/2 is nice.
>
I was never much into the f2 series beyond the core focal lengths. I
have 28/2, late 50/1.4 and 85/2, all of modest size and weight. I also
have a 35.2.8, but haven't used it in ages.
As I have moved to digital for most photography, my OM system interest
has moved even more toward the older, more compact, and thus slower
lenses. If it's bright, I prefer the 200/5 to the f4 and 135/3.5 to the
f2.8. They seem more in tune with the OM spirit to me. My wider lenses
have always been slower, 24/2.8, 21/3.5 and 18/3.5 (no choice there).
> The 18/3.5 is a fun lens. I don't know of any equivalent to it in today's
> digital world.
17mm on the Tamron 17-35 is very nice. Faster than the 18/3.5. Probably
not quite as sharp in the corners. But it's an in close lens I've mostly
used it in natural situations or architectural interiors, where DOF
frequently comes into play at the edges. Way too wide for landscape,
where edges are mostly in the sharp zone. But take a look at the edges
in the Hearst Castle interiors below. A very useful lens.
A fair amount of waveform distortion, but PTLens straightens it right
out. I posted these while you were away.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/Oak01.htm>
and
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan01.htm>
and
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan02.htm>
and
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan03.htm>
and
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/GStair.htm>
Like the 18/3.5, it's great for tight places where you can't back up any
further.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Shasta/slides/_MG_2144cr.html>
Here again, he tree was right in my face, and it was impossible to move
back.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/ElfinForest/slides/_MG_1203ptl.html>
The interiors of Hearst Castle are almost all at 17mm.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/index.html>
> But for macro, I would go with bit based cameras these days. I've been using
> a Can*n 180/3.5 macro of late, and do not miss the 90/2 at all.
I've been very happy with the Tamron 90/2.8.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|