----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> I was just sooo disappointed in the 90/2 that I had for close-up. Not
> awful, just so-so when I was expecting a lot.
>
You really expecting a lot from it, to me the close-up quality is good, at
least average for a 90mm macro. Here is a ~1:3 (?) shot at F2.8, not bad to
my eyes.
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5157.JPG (ISO 800, sharpness=1, NR=0)
Its excellent corner to corner performance for distance object is difficult
to find among the OM Zuikos I have, great for demanding landscape.
>
> My lens for family events for many years was the 35-70/3.6. I used it on
> a 2n, with OTF flash indoors or under trees, and was very happy.
>
The zoom is more versatile but you know fix lenses just feel much better and
peoples are more respected to the image produce from fix lenses :-)
>> On the other hand the 50/3.5 is just fine with E-1:
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P5231022s.jpg
>>
>
> Nice! I like your 'bug' images; had just wandered through them again
> earlier today. I keep thinking I'll build a diffuser like yours, but it
> hasn't happened. :-)
>
Thanks! I'm really glad you like them. With the high ISO capability of
current DSLR, you may not need to use flash :-)
> The angle of view is like 100mm on FF, but the working distance is still
> short. I really like the working distance of the Tamron 90/2.5 with 2x
> converter. 180m is great and f5 stopped down a bit is fine for sunny days.
>
More working distance is better but shorter lens is easier for handhold.
C.H.Ling
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
