On 12/21/2015 4:54 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Then again, I found the 90/2 to be lowly. If it didn't claim to be a Macro
lens, I'd have no complaint, but past about 1:4, it went all mushy. Likely
the only OM lens I bought, tried out, and sold on fairly promptly (which is
why it wasn't in the above test.)
I've always wondered about sample variability. While you aren't the
only person to have found issues with the 90/2, it certainly is not an
universal opinion.
Yes, I certainly love my 90/2 even for magnification greater than 1:4.
This is probably shot at 1:3 with 5D II:
www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5157.JPG
One, unanswerable question - is it any better than it would have been with one of the other excellent MF macros from
that time?
And a comment. I tried to be specific about macro qualities in lenses in these posts. This, very nice, image is about
central sharpness; sharpness away from the center, field curvature, and so on don't mean a thing for this subject and DoF.
I'm happy that you are enjoying yours.
Stubbornly Macro Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|