Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] ( OM ) macro performance

Subject: Re: [OM] ( OM ) macro performance
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:37:40 -0800
Walt posted on this subject back in August 8, 03 with test results of the 90/2 vs 100/2 and Tamron 90/2.8:
====================================================================

When I came into possession of a NIB 90/2 Zuiko macro a few weeks ago, I promised to do some comparison test shots with it and the 90/2.8 Tamron macro. I did that, but since the results were less than startling, I haven't bothered to report until now. I'll not be posting any pictures, either, because there's nothing that could be scanned, pixelized and down-sized enough to scoot through the electricity that would still be in any way profoundly elucidating or revealing in an evaluation made on the miserable viewing medium of a computer monitor.

The test shots were made on Provia 100F with an OM-4Ti on a Manfrotto 405 geared head atop a Manfrotto 3221 tripod, using either the self timer, a T10 ring flash, or a T45 flash off camera. I made the observations that follow through use of an 8x Cabin loupe, a 20x Peak loupe (plastic and not all that good, but still sometimes revealing) with the slides spread out on a 13x17 in. Knox light box, and by projection to a 50x50 in. matte screen.

(1) One of these lenses is not a true 90mm lens. Shooting from identical film-to-subject distances, the Tamron covers a slightly larger field of view. The difference is only a couple of millimeters horizontally, but it looks like, if the Zuiko is a true 90mm lens, then the Tamron is about 88mm, or if the Tamron is 90mm, then the Zuiko is about 92mm. This is a difference so inconsequential I considered not even mentioning it.

(2) The Zuiko is slightly warmer than the Tamron. No surprise. And when I say "slightly," thats exactly what I mean. I guess it's that Zuiko glow we all love. Keeps down the need for warming filters.

(3) Neither lens is distinguishable from the other in terms of sharpness and/or contrast. I see absolutely no difference in either area. And I looked hard!

(4) And now to bokeh. Since this is so important to some folks, I took a series of shots with backgrounds from mere millimeters to many feet beyond the zone of sharp focus. And I got just exactly what I expected from a pair of lenses of the same focal length and with nine-blade diaphragms: Absolutely, positively, no doubt about it, there is not one iota of difference in the bokeh. This just confirms my belief that bokeh is dependent on focal length and the shape of the iris and nothing else. There is no magic Zuiko glass that creates wonderful bokeh. The bottom line is that both lenses produce really fuzzy and smooth bokeh, about as good as it gets.

And one further observation. As I threatened to do, I did a different series of test shots with the 100/2 and the 90/2 Zuikos, and these show that the 100/2 is definitely sharper than the 90/2. That's why it, along with the 50/2 and the 21/2, are my favorite Zuiko primes. Get them while you can, if you can. But you cant have mine!

Some have complained that the 100/2 is just too sharp................
====================================================================

Moose


Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:

I've never done any rigorous testing, but my impression of the 50/2 agrees with Gary Reese's results, that it's at least as sharp - if not sharper than the 50/3.5. I've never used any of the macro 90's, so can't help you there, but in terms of handling the 50/2 is a lot like the 100/2, though maybe a bit easier to get good results with. The bokeh of the 50/2, while better than the 50/3.5, is still not as nice as the 85/2 or 100/2. It's now the 50mm lens that I use most often, and if you can find one at a good price, I'd certainly recommend it.

Mark

Brian Swale wrote:

Hi folks,

I'd like to hear about members' experience with some specific macros, if I
may: ...........

So I thought I'd ask you all, those of you who have ever used one of these
macro lenses, how you'd rate it for

sharpness / resolution; contrast; and colour rendition:

versus the Zuiko 100/2;
versus the Zuiko 90/2
and versus the
Tamron 90 macro (3 versions to choose from)
Tokina 90 macro
Sigma 90 macro




< 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 >




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz