And how, pray tell, does that relate to a comparison between two lenses
you've never used.
Do I not recall you telling stories about how your gf and her friends
found photographs of them taken with this lens distasteful and the time
you spent in Photoshop correcting the problem of extreme sharpness and
contrast in portraits?
I have the Tamron 90/2.5 and a SC Zuiko 100/2.8. I don't use the Tamron
for portraits or the Zuiko for cu/macro. Going back to the original
question days ago, the Tamron is a sharper lens for cu/macro work than
the Zuiko.
I have used the Tamron extensively to make slides for University
lectures from flat copy. It is excellent for that purpose and also takes
great flower/plant pics. But in the field, I prefer the Kiron 105/2.8
Macro, in spite of its greater weight, partly for the slightly longer
working distance, but mostly for the ability to go past 1:2 without
having to stop and play with attachments. The later formula MC 50/1.4
with the Vivitar Macro-Focusing Teleconverter is also a 100/2.8 combo
that focuses from infinity to 1:1 and is smaller and lighter than Tamron
and Kiron. I'm sure it isn't as flat field as the true macro lenses, but
with natural 3-D subjects, gives excellent results. This shot of a
quartz pebble less than 1/2 inch long lying on a trail has limitations
from DOF and being hand held, but gives some idea what this combo can
do.
<http://home.attbi.com/0.000000E+00dreammoose/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-110867.html>
I have some better images from all three lenses awaiting my finding the
time to figure out how to post them on my new ISP.
Moose
Albert wrote:
I own the Tokina 90mm f2.5, and the images are nothing short of
stunning; It's the best lens in my bag, I've said it before and I'll
say it again..
< 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 >
|