I think I just heard you say (or write) that the 90 is a better short
telephoto than the 100? I see the point of 'soft' for a portrait, but it
seems to me that I could give up the 100, if I owned a 90.
Tom
> It is generally accepted (and test results bear it out) that you get
> softer f/2 to f/2.8 results with the 100mm f/2, which may be preferred
> for portraiture, esp. of women. At those apertures, contrast is "high"
> for both, but resolution is lower in the 100mm.
>
> Both have floating elements, so close focusing distances shouldn't lend
> a user to favoring one or the other, unless they need to get towards the
> 1:2 point (which is the domain of the 90mm). Published test results show
> the 90mm as having better performance at far distances, which PROBABLY
> matches the characteristics of the 100mm f/2, although I've never read
> of anyone testing that.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV
>
< 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 >
|