Thank you gentlemen, I am surprised at the statement that the 90/2.0
is even
better than the famed 100/2.0 for distant subjects also, but very
pleased if this
is true - then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to want a
100/2.0 if one
has a 90/2.0 :-) The 90 is by far and away my favourite lens.
What I find interesting (especially in light of my own experience of
this lens) is
the less than world-dominating figures the lens scores in Gary Reese's
lens test
(kindly reproduced by Ken in his link in the previous e-mail). Why do
you think
that is? Not a single "A"+ rating anywhere, though I would certainly
rate even my
hand-held macro images with this lens as such... Perpendicular beach
macro shots
at ~50cm render every last grain of beach sand with complete and
uniform clarity,
right to the frame edge.
Hence my original question about the "further distance" performance...
But thank you
for the posted images, C.H. - they do show the infinity performance
well. Your images
(on a half-frame camera) show me that one can expect wonders at f/8 at
infinity on
slow monochrome film...
(Off-Topic: But it's interesting that my other most favourite lens
ever is also a 90,
the Schneider-Kreuznach 90/5.6 Super Angulon XL)
On 23 Feb 2009, at 5:08 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> I would say 90/2 is even better than 100/2 for distance objects.
On 23 Feb 2009, at 5:18 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> From what I've been told by those who have the 90/2, there is no
>> comparison.
> The 90/2 rules the world and is the cat's meow of all lenses.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|