Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] 50/2 macro vs. 90/2 macro

Subject: RE: [OM] 50/2 macro vs. 90/2 macro
From: Chip Stratton <cstrat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 17:10:44 -0600
John -

I have Tamron SP 90/2.5 which I have failed to sell yet since acquiring the
Zuiko 90/2. I personally couldn't justify the extra cost of the Zuiko based
on image quality, the Tamron 90 is quite the lens and I have never been
disappointed in it. And I can't say that my pictures  are any sharper with
the Zuiko.

The real advantage of the Zuiko to me is in the esthetics of using it - it
is just a beautiful lens to look at and use. As a true Zuikoholic, that
counts for me almost as much as the picture I actually get from it. The
process of photography - going out and taking pictures, looking at the
light, trying to see things in a different way than I normally do when going
from Point A to Point B, is at least 500f the reason I photograph. So I
'like' the Zuiko 90/2 a lot more than the Tamron SP 90/2.5.

Naturally, the true professionals, those who need or want to make a living
from their photography and to whom the camera and lens is primarily a tool,
a means to an end, may  have a very different take on it.

Chip Stratton
cstrat@xxxxxxxxx


> Tom--and all other interested Zuiks,
> I'm in a different position.  I have the 50/3.5, which I love, and the
> Tamron SP 90/2.5 macro (Adaptall II), which I love (but, boy, is
> it heavy!).
> If there's anybody out there with experience of the Zuiko 90/2 and the
> Tamron lens, is the Zuiko enough better to justify the difference in cost?
> BTW, I don't do much portrature; mostly natural stuff in B&W.
> Regards,
> JohnP


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz