I agree, they are very different lenses. The interesting thing, though, is
that they both also excel at what they were NOT intended for. The 90/2
actually makes a wonderful portrait lens with the smooth bokeh we love in
macro work extending to the portraits. Not as sharp as the 100/2 which
actually may be an advantage for a portrait. It is also a useful short
telephoto. Pretty amazing for a macro lens. The 85/2 accomplishes things
from the opposite direction. Truly one of the best short telephotos out
there. Small, light, fast -- everything the OM system is all about. One of
my true favorites and one I use constantly. As John L. pointed out, it
excels as a macro lens with the addition of an auto extension tube. Also an
amazing feat for a general purpose telephoto.
If I could only have one it would truly be a tough call. I'd probably go
for the 90/2 as I love macro work, but the 85/2 is a great choice too.
Then there is the 100/2.8, the 135/2.8, the 21/2, the.....
oh, you get the idea.
Tom
> >All these talks about 85/2 etc., how do they compare to the 90/2?
>
> Different lenses. If you need one of the worlds sharpest macros and
> are able to pay for it,
> the 90/2 is yours.
> The 85/2 is a lot cheaper but IMHO an excellent performer. Not as
> versatile (no macro) but a lot lighter.
> I don't know about the bad rumours. I got a late 85. Very sharp where
> needed, very soft when wanted.
>
> Henrik Dahl
>
< 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 >
|