I don't have that problem because the other camera is generally another
Oly body with different film and they can share a variety of lenses.
Given all that, I'd take the best lens for the type of pics I plan to
take with it. Carrying a whole extra body and then taking a less than
ideal lens for the purpose for which I am carrying the body seems pretty
counterproductive.
And finally, I would take neither of the lenses you mention, as I have
neither. I don't see the point of the 50/2 when the 50/3.5 is excellent
for fixed copy work and I don't like 50mm macros out in nature. I don't
have the 90/2 because it's really expensive, only goes to 1:2 without
carrying extra stuff and swapping it in and out and I already have a
Kiron 105/2.8 that goes directly to 1:1, a 135/4.5 and a Tamron 90/2.5
with matching multiplier that makes it a 180/5 that also focuses from
infinity to 1:1. I have too many choices already!
My solution in my version of your dillema, whether to carry a separate
macro or not, is to add the Vivitar MacroTeleconverter, which makes the
50/1.4 into a 100/2.8 that focuses from infinity to 1:1.
Moose
Richard F. Man wrote:
Last time I went hiking with the *other* camera, I really wished I
have the OM4T+ one of the macro lens for the occasionally macro shots.
However, neither the 50/2 nor the 90/2 is small. The 50/2 wins here
since it is smaller but the 90 has a different perspective than the
lenses on the other camera.
So question is if you can only bring one lens w/ your OM (plus another
camera with its lens), would you take the 50/2 or the 90/2?
< 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 >
|