C.H.Ling wrote:
> Thanks Frank, even people complain about the macro performance,
Like me. :-)
> the 90/2 is very good at lower mag and distance objects
Mine seemed to kick in at around 1:5. At lower magnifications than that,
it was an excellent lens.
I just couldn't see the point of keeping an expensive "macro" lens that
didn't live up to the name. With 50/3.5, 135/4.5, 90/2.5 Tamron, 105/2.8
Kiron macros and 85/2 and 100/2.8*, I just didn't see where the 90/2
added anything useful for me. I've since added the 80/4 Auto real macro.
And a wonderful 90/2.8 Tamron AF macro for Canon FF.
Moose
* Queue further AG rant about closet queens. ;-) Hey, at least the
90/2 moved on to someone who used it.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|