First my take on the 90/2 vs 85/2. The 90/2 is quite a brute of a lens, and
not one I'd take just anywhere. The 85/2, as Tom pointed out, is VERY
compact and produces very nice images. Both would be the "easiest"
solution. I just got my 85/2 about 4 weeks ago, and I'm very pleased.
Second, the discussion of alternate solutions to the 90/2. I would second
taking a 50 Macro as a companion to the 85/2, although I think the 50/2 is a
bit more versatile and a bit faster than the 50/3.5. It would make a good
pair with the 85/2, and these two accompanied me on vacation 2 weeks ago
along with the 21/3.5 and I didn't miss my 90/2 one bit.
Third, I was playing around with the 135/4.5 & Auto-Tube last week and I was
surprised at the versatility of that combo. You get a macro with a very
large working distance, which is good for insects. And you get a general
purpose 135, which I used for a few portraits wide open (no slides back yet
though). The downside is that the combo is very heavy and bulky.
So once again, the OM system, with its multitude of Macrophotography
options, keeps us all engaged and interested in the production of images,
while feeding our unholy desires for more equipment. You get the best of
both worlds; as long as you use the equipment. Otherwise you only get an
empty wallet and a full cabinet!
Skip
****** I M P O R T A N T R E P L Y I N F O ************
Please adddress ALL offlist messages to skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
This hotmail.com email address is ONLY used for this mailing list
subscription and I will probably not notice any private messages addressed
here.
***********************************************************
From: Jim Couch <JamesBCouch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 85 f2 vs Zuiko 90 f2 Macro
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:56:17 -0700
The 50 f3.5 Macro is a wonderful little lens as you have pointed out, but
it does
not offer a lot of working distance which is why I sold mine. I still have
not
decided if I am actually going to get a 90 f2 or not. Am also kicking
around the
possibility of a 135 macro to use with my 65-116 auto tubes - now THAT
combo
gives me some working distance! :) What I really need is every single
zuiko, a
bunch of camera bodies and an employee to carry them all! :)
Jim Couch
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> 50/3.5 - 200g - 40mm long - 61mm diameter - 49mm filter
> So you can have your macro cake and save 90 grams carrying the 85/2
> and the 50/3.5 over just the 90/2. If you usually carry normal lens
> then then you also save another 230g, although in that case I would
> opt for the 50/2 which is a little heavier than the 3.5. Tom is right
> though. It is the intangibles. I know he loves the 90/2 and I
> probably would too if I had one. I really love my 50/2.
>
> Winsor
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
< 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 >
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
< 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 >
|