usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Closely monitored Moose et al eval. of lenses on the 5D---90 Tamron seemed
> a bit soft in the corners with this type of scrutiny.
Let's be clear. I've used the Tamron 90/2.5 for a lot of flat copy work
to slides with excellent results. It's only pixel peeping with the full
frame sensor that showed it to be less sharp than the 50/3.5.
and all that without any post work to sharpen it up. It's still an
excellent lens. I was less disappointed with what I saw with it than
amazed at the 50/3.5.
> Wonder how the exalted Z.90 would fare?
I would use the Tam for macro in preference to the 90/2. I am in the
small, but vocal, minority who found the macro performance of the 90/2
less than stellar. A few others have agreed. I tried and tried, then
sold it without regret, keeping the Tamron and Kiron.
> I have still need to obtain a longer FL macro.
>
Any of the 90/2.5-2.8 macros from Tamron, Tokina or Vivitar should be a
good bet. The later, f2.8 versions mostly focus directly to 1:1, but are
larger and heavier because of the extra focusing helicoid. The Kiron
105/2.8 also does that and is excellent. I just don't think you will see
on film the difference from the 50/3.5. I know I never did.
I have a used Tamron SP 90/2.8 Di in EF mount arriving tomorrow, so I
guess I'm putting my money where my mouth is.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|