While I don't have either lens, I don't understand the question. Aren't you
comparing apples and oranges? 90 vs 50? The only thing I would expect to
compare is the macro ability. But even that is different. What's the ratio
on each lens? Even if that is equal, your focal length will change the
perspective of the view. Wouldn't the 50 have a greater depth of focus?
Well, which ever one you decide you prefer, just send the other over here to
Eldersburg to ensure it won't be neglected. ;-)
Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 2:16 PM
> Subject: [OM] 50/2 macro vs. 90/2 macro
> Through the generosity of a fellow list member, I am now the proud owner
of
> an awfully nice 50/2 macro. As most of you know, I also own the 90/2
which
> is one of my favorite lenses.
>
> I guess I am interested in the opinions of those that have used both. I
> love the 90/2, but this 50/2 seems like a real winner. The first thing I
> noticed is how much smaller and lighter it is than the 90/2. It is still
> bigger than the 50/1.2, but not by that much.
>
> So, what's the real benefit of one over the other?
>
> Tom
< 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 >
|