Dear Alex ,
U wrote ...
> I'm contemplating the purchase of one of these. According to Gary's
>reports, the 90 has the absolute edge in overall sharpness. However, is
there
>anyone out there who has used both very heavily and can offer an additional
>subjective opinion??? In particular, if you chief subject matter are people
>rather than macro, and wide open performance is critical--can you discern a
>difference between the two across Velvia or Kodachrome?
>
I don't own either lens, altho at this very moment , I am seriously
negotiating with a fellow OMer to buy a mint/near-mint 90/f2.
Like to offer my humble opinion..... BOTH these lenses are star performers.
But they each perform different roles. To expect the 100/f2 to be as 'good'
as the 90/f2 is barking up the wrong tree. As what it is , the 90/f2 is a
macro lens and even amongst its rival brands , it is significantly a better
performer (from what I read and am convinced). The 100/f2 is a medium
telephoto , very fast one at that, not sure but probably more for low-light
reportage.... I say this beause Zuiko made an 85/f2 which I think is meant
to be a portrait lens....
If we can take 3 steps back before U asked that question..... , I think
portrait lenses have that certian quality of being able to make it look
'just right' as opposed to the same pic taken by a macro lens. If I may
elaborate, someone told me the same thing when I thot of buying the famed
Leica APO 100/f2.8 Macro lens in the hope of letting it perform dual
functions of a macro lens as well as a portrait lens.... Immediately he
said... no don't do that... you'll get very different results. He said the
macro shot will be very 'hard'.... 'too sharp' for a pleasing portrait....
He said, use the Leica 90/f2 or 90/f2.8 for portraits.... they come out more
'pleasing'..... Its different , he said... if U don't believe, go study pics
of portraits from both lenses... U will see what I mean......
IMOHO, U can do with the 85/f2 (which I have & can vouch for its quality ) o
r 100/f2.8 (which I also have, and can see a discernible difference from the
85/f2) for your portraits. If U can afford (which I am not doubting) the
100/f2 , its a luxury... go ahead .. enjoy ! Its a good piece of glass...
But don't buy a 90/f2 to do your portraits.... its like 'mis-using' the
strengths of the lens which is in the area of macro work.... The 90/f2 may
show up every pimple & freckle & etc, but I don't think that's what U always
want to see in a portrait study ....
wonder if any of u out there can agree....
or disagree...
regards
TMLee, Singapore
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|