Tom didn't mention the 180/2.8. I've got the Tamron 80-200/2.8, which is a
great lens and has the added advantage of zoom flexibility. But I find I use
the 180/2.8 Zuiko more. It's nicer to use, and I really like the results. It
seems to have a touch of something extra. Could it be a bit of chromatic
abberation? Nah, that's not it.
I agree with Iwert about the 100/2 and the 90/2. I use the 100 far more,
although the 90 is a definite keeper. It's the lens I go to for macro shots
when I don't want to bother with the 65~116 auto tube or bellows and one of the
"real" macro lenses. After the 21/2 and the 50/2, the 100/2 is the lens I
would fight hardest to keep. As for bokeh, I can't tell that much difference
between it and the 90/2. But then I'm not all that big on bokeh -- just as
long as it's not really bad.
Don't have an 85/2, so I can't comment. Do I need one? Don't answer that.
Walt
--
Everybody thinks they have a sense
of humor -- even people who don't.
>
> Oh come on. An absolute like this is ridiculous. I'm no Leica man, but I'd
> put the 85/2, 100/2, 90/2 and 21/2 up against anything.
>
> The 90/2 bokeh cannot be beat. Period.
>
> I have a 60/2.8 Micro-nikkor (90/2.8 on the D100) that is nice and produces
> good shots, but it is NOT the 90/2 Zuiko.
>
> I miss it.
>
> Tom
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|