The 90/2 was not much more expensive than 100/2 in the late 80s', with
similar or even better performance plus macro I don't see any problem from
choosing it. The 85/2 is certainly not up to 100/2 or 90/2 performance. The
50/3.5 is much slower and shorter, the 135/4.5 is not that convenient and
also slow, the 80/4 is even more limited on the field. But they all have
their own uses so I own all of them and use them on where appropriate.
We just can't compare original lens with third part lenses especially they
are one stop slower!
The color/tonal quality of 90/2 is definately better than many other lenses.
Most old Tamron MF glasses has color problem that is a consensus here
between many old users. Of course it may be personal taste issue, just like
the poor Canon color that many people are very happy with, it took me years
to find a way to deal with it.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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/
|