> Nope, I have the Z. 50F2 and you can test away next visit. It seems to
> have a particulaly nice rendering at non macro distances.
I know that Mike Johnson (TOP) was particularily fond of this lens.
> It has nicer bokeh than the Zuiko 85/2 at 10 ft so I use it for that
> situation wide open.
The 100/2.8 and 85/2 underwent a couple of design changes. The 85/2
had extensive changes, in fact. Some 85/2 produced better than some
100/2.8 and vise-versa, depending on which formulas are being
compared. From what I've seen, both sets of lenses had some issues
with the background rendering at the half-body height portrait length.
We'd have to go nuts in comparing them, but I know that digital
imaging renders these differently than film did. So, who knows at this
point. But a long time ago on a list far far away (when Tom Scales was
buying/selling like a madman), the 85/2 was still considered to be far
superior my most people to the 100/2.8. I of course, always disagreed
just to be ornery.
> on the same shelf along with the big brother. We could have a real
> tough time with a detailed analysis to compare the Z. 85/2, Z90/2,
> Z. 100/2.8 viv S1 90mm, CV90mm. (The zuiko 85 though almost never
> left home on a trip.)
Well, now that Joel has a 5D, it would be an easy thing for the Iowa
Synod of Zuiko to do some testing. I think Joel has an 85/2, so we
could do a comparison between the 85/2, 90/2, 100/2 and 100/2.8.
> When I gaze with glowing admiration at the CV90 mounted on the 4T,
> have received a quizzical look from the CFO.
> It seems to say "perhaps I married a nut case." As they say at the
> Moose's, at least it's not heroin.
I'm told that the difference is minor. except, unlike heroin, I can't
quit anytime I want.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|