Well, David, that was several years ago, and I've never owned either, so I'm
not so sure I could relate the comments correctly. I do believe t hat this
person was refering to optical qualities.
Bill Pearce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawid Loubser" <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape
>> Another list member sh owed me his 100/2 and noted that it was far
>> superior
>> in general use to the 90.
>
> Hi bill, in which ways? Are you talking handling, or optics? I have a
> hard time
> imagining superior in terms of optics, I really do. Also, the 90/2.0
> has a really
> smooth and quick focus throw for most "normal" distances, it only
> becomes long in
> the macro range. The 90/2.0 is not very big, and surprisingly short
> for what it is.
> A bit fat yes (not the prettiest lens ever made), and the aperture
> ring is at the
> back, but I prefer it that way (like on the 35-80/2.8) because it is
> right next
> to the shutter speed dial, so you can shift settings while keeping the
> same exposure
> in literally one action.
>
> Anyway, I am just curious...
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.3/1968 - Release Date: 02/23/09
18:22:00
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|