I've also got the 100/2 Zuiko. It's one of my favorites. It gets
used a lot shooting landscapes, nearly as much as all the wide
angles combined. I'll include it in my comparison of the two
macros. If the 90/2 is sharper than the 100/2, then I'll have to
try it against the 50/2 Zuiko, which I consider the best of the
Zuikos -- at least the best of the ones I've got.
Walt
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Fast Primes" <fast_primes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:19:28 -0400
>Hi Walt,
>
> I once had both the 90F2.0 Macro and 100F2.0 OM lenses.
>While, I found no obvious differences in their respective optical
>performance, the distinctly smaller 100F2.0 was the lens I
>decided to keep and sold the bigger 90. A few years later, I
>found myself plunging deep into macro--seriously shooting flowers
>and butterflies and such for the first time in my life. Along the
>way, I acquired a Vivitar Series 1 90F2.5. However, while the 90
>is very sharp, there is still "something" that the 100F2.0 does
>better. I will be interested in your observations of the OM and
>Tamron 90s.
>
>fast_primes
>
< 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 >
|