Dawid Loubser wrote:
> 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.
>
I have heard here the opposite opinion from others who have had both
lenses. Gary's tests @ 1:40 suggest that the lenses are quite
comparable. Remember what he says:
"*Subjective quality factor style grades are relative, with A+ = best,
then B, C, D, and F (worst); differences are significant across full
letter grades only (unless a paired comparison was made - as noted).
Corner grades are measured at 66% out from center and are less rigorous
than center grades. An A+ grade for centers and corners is set to the
performance of a 50mm f/2.0 Zuiko Macro at f/8.*"
> 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...
Read the above again ... Gary is clear that his ratings are subjective,
not absolute and that comparisons at the 1/3 grade, i.e., A vs. A+ are
meaningless except in paired comparisons, which this is not. I know you
love your 90/2, but I don't believe anyone who has tried them would rate
it as quite as good as the 50/2 macro, which set the standard for A+.
> Perpendicular beach macro shots at ~50cm render every last grain of beach
> sand with complete and uniform clarity, right to the frame edge.
>
That is not really macro photography. If the distance from front of lens
to subject is 50cm, repro ratio is about 1:4.6. If it is 50cm from
subject to film plane, about 1:3.4. My personal experience was that my
90/2 was excellent from about 1:4 out to infinity.
No matter what Oly said "The exclusive Olympus focus aberration
correction mechanism guarantees first class picture sharpness all the
way from minimum focus to infinity.", I found that it fell behind other
macro lenses of comparable focal length from 1:4 to 1:2.
Even Oly says not to go beyond that point without expecting poorer
performance. "Combined with an Auto Extension Tube or Auto Bellows, this
lens permits magnifications higher than 1/2 x [1:2]. For best results,
however, it is recommended to use other macro lenses designed for
specific magnifications."
I bought this legendary lens for exactly what it promised, the ability
to deliver top notch performance from 1:2 to infinity. It didn't deliver
on that promise below 1:4 or so, other lenses I had did, so I sold it.
> 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...
>
Indeed. There are many Zuikos of which that is true.
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/
|