Even though it doesn't get a lot of use, i really like my 85/2, so if the
image quality of the 85/2 and 90/2 are similar, is the 90/2 the "keeper"
because of the 1: 2 macro, or are there other reasons?
It looks like i don't need to think about getting a 100/2 (yes, 1:5), and if
the 85/2 is in the same league, then maybe there's no need to think about
the 90/2 either, as i really don't do much macro work... ?
RickM
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<with snipping:>
> Well, these are very tough questions. The 100/2 is probably sharper than
the 90/2 but immeasurably to my eye. It goes to, I believe, 1:5 where the
90/2 goes to 1:2 (Did I get that right)?
> The 85/2 is harder to quantify. The results are certainly in the league,
quality wise, with any of the lenses being discussed, including the 100/2.
Certainly beyond my eyes.
> Let's face it, I am going to cut my OM collection way back. The 90/2 and
the 85/2 are going to be on the keeper list for quite awhile. The 90/2 and
the 4T will be on the permanent list.
> Tom
>> Do you find the image quality the same with the 85/2 and 100/2 and 90/2,
or does the size/convenience of the 85/2 win over any quality differences
that do exist? I suppose one way of asking the same question is, at what
size enlargement would you see a difference between pictures taken with ED
glass (90/2, 100/2) and the 85/2?
>>RickM
< 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 >
|