Moose, you may be mis-interpreting why I asked the question: I have
taken a couple
of hundred photographs with both lenses already, and am fairly well
acquainted with
them by now. I just wanted to hear the expert group's informed pinion
of the merits
of using both for distant subjects, because I have not had the chance
to print/scan
most of my images. ONly after a while does one get a "feel" for what
one's lenses do
in different situations, and I have not done many distant subject with
the 90/2.0.
The opinion here seems that it is far superior to the 135/3.5, since
the discussion
shifted to the 100/2.0.
I remain surprised about the comment of the 90/20 not being sharp at
1:2 - 1:4, my
negatives prove otherwise to me. Have you used multiple copies of this
lens? My testing
(though I could only view images by projection, not print or scan it
yet) show it
to match or exceed the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM (a lens which
appears to rather
thrash Nikon's attempt at a 105mm Macro lens, and is exceedingly good
in all respects),
multiple copies of which I am *very* acquainted with.
I am not even talking about using it wide open at 1:2, because
honestly there is no
DOF at 90/2.0 at 1:2 magnification - nada. But at f/11 detail seems to
pop like I have
never seen it before.
Of course, I will not claim to be more acquinted with this lens than
you guys, myself
having only owned it for four months.
P.S. I would love a 200/5.0, but can't seem to find one!
P.P.S Moose, I like your shot of the fence / tree trunk. Can you
remember the taking aperture?
On 25 Feb 2009, at 12:50 AM, Moose wrote:
<snip>
>
> Perhaps the longest for you. For me, it's the 200/5.
>
<snip>
>
> Sharpness, or modest, but annoying lack of same, at 1:4 to 1:2.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|