Check the two lenses at http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/zuiko/index.htm
The 100/2 has the nod at F2.8 over the 90/2, but otherwise they
are close in resolution. 100/2 has higher contrast. If macro is not a big plus,
go for the 100/2, and even using extension tubes as Ag suggested.
I wonder if the 100/2 on extension can do better macro than the 90/2?
I think I will go try. I also wonder if there were different coatings on the
90/2. I remember comparing two of them, the later one seem to have
a bit more green in the reflection? If so, the tests above may give
different contrast results with a newer version of the lens.
The 90/2 on the E-1 recommended range is F4-F8 while the 100/2
on the E-1 is F2.8-F8. If you like to shoot fast, the 100/2 has the
edge. (from the OM FourThirds adapter document).
Unfortunately the 100/2 is harder to find and I'm not ready to give
up mine. I'm sure you can find a lower price on a used 90/2.
Wayne
At 08:11 AM 9/15/2004, you wrote:
>How does the 90mm F2 stack up against the 100mm F2? I have been tossing
>up for a while about which one I want, and since I don't do a lot of
>macro, I was thinking about the 100mm F2.
>
>That being said, there is a brand new 90mm F2 macro for sale at B&H for
>USD$1039. But this seems a little steep.
>
>Does anybody have or know of anybody selling a 100mm F2 Zuiko in
>excellent condtion? What did the 100mm sell for new?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|