At 09:11 PM 1/5/2002 +0000, you wrote:
At 20:56 1/5/02, Richard asked wrote:
All these talks about 85/2 etc., how do they compare to the 90/2?
p.s. I think I read somewhere that there are some 85/2 that are not so
good. Are they written by heretics?
[snip]
[John L.:]
Yes, they're authored by heretical 90/2 owners envious of those who
successfully use the smaller/lighter 85/2 with extension tubes.
Seriously:
The lens was likely reformulated from the original. Within the range of
literature there, 4E/5G and 5E/6G formulation descriptions are found
within the range of literature. I recommend the later multi-coated
version. The lens has a floating element for close distance correction
which has worked very well for me. The comments you've seen or heard
about are likely confounded with the early SC version and the later MC
version. As well as the combination of 85/2 with the OM 7/14/25mm tubes
or Vivitar 12/20/36mm tubes has worked for me I've never felt the need to
pursue the 90/2 macro (which, BTW, *is* an outstanding lens).
What I gleaned from Gary R.'s tests is that the SC formula was a little
better stopped down than opened up. The MC reformulation improved the lens
at the f4-8 stops. This is assuming that both lenses tested were
representative samples. Anyway, I suppose that may be important if you
want a lens that will take you to Bokehville...
The thing we have to remember is that distinctions between an A and even a
C rating in Gary's tests are subtle for most of us mere mortals. We talk
about these results as though they are things seen and known, but most of
us will not see them easily or at all. Instead we'll be looking at a
facial expression, something that indicates a tripod should have been used,
the rendering of the the blue of the sky, etc. (which is as it should be).
Joel W.
< 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 >
|