Thank you Moose, it really gets more interesting. I read up on the Tamron
90mm's, BTW, and could not resist a very nice price on one of them, the early
all-metal model ;-). OM users are lucky. - Phil
On 01:47, Moose wrote:
>Paul has clearly spent more hours testing than I have. I do suggest,
>however, that you take results from one person, one testing method
>and one example of each lens with a slight grain of salt. Nothing
>against Paul, me, PopPhoto, Gary, PhotoDo, etc., but lens testing is
>a tricky business and there is sample variation in lenses.
>> On 11:15, Paul Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> I've spent endless hours testing all of them on a FF 14MP digital
>>> camera (Kodak SLR/c). At close/macro distances there is no doubt.
>>> The Vivitar 90/2.5 S1 delivers greater detail and is the best
>>> overall performer consistently.
>I'm assuming that the Viv is the Tokina 90/2.5 in drag. Vivitar
>never was a manufacturer, rather marketing lenses made by others.
>Even the legendary original 70-210, although designed for them in
>the US, was made for them in Japan by Kiron. As there were only two
>90/2.5 lenses made by actual manufacturers, it has to be either the
>Tamron or the Tokina wearing Viv markings. Have you checked the
>start of the serial number to see who actually made it? That could
>be useful to those looking for one.
>
>>> The 90/2, 50/2, and 50/3.5 are all great lenses (had them all,
>>> and the 100/2). They are excellent at normal and close focus, but
>>> as they approach their closest focus distance at 1:2 macro, the
>>> performance drops off.
>Here, my experience differs. My 90/2 went downhill fast on the way
>to 1:2. My 50/3.5s are rock solid at 1:2. I've never had a 50/2.
>
>>> From wide open to stopped down, I tested all apertures. The
>>> Vivitar is sharper and has a flatter field of focus, and less CA
>>> at all apertures. It even has great bokeh. The Zuiko 90/2 has
>>> nice bokeh, but it's not the best. If you want great bokeh from a
>>> Zuiko I think the 100/2 is better. I've also tested the Kiron
>>> 100/2.8 and similar Vivitar 105/2.8 macro - the Vivitar S1 still
>>> came out ahead.
>>>
>A typo, I assume, as the Kiron is also 105 mm and internally the
>same lens as the Viv.
>
>My 5D has one less mp than the Kodak, but it is possible that it
>resolves more detail. Newer sensor systems can resolve more than
>older ones, in some cases. The 5.1 mp of the central portion of the
>5D resolves more detail than the same area with 6.3 mp in the
>10D/300D sensor, in my testing.
>
>I tested the 50/3.5, Kiron 105/2.8, Tamron 90/2.5 (52B) and new AF
>Tamron 90/2.8 Di. I didn't test every aperture of every lens, only
>those around the sweet spot, and used the best for each lens.
>
>The 50/3.5 clearly won over the old MF Tamron and Kiron at 1:2, not
>only with better center and edge resolution, but with much less
>vignetting. A really sharp, clear image. At 1:1, the 50/3.5 fell
>behind a little. The other two had different image qualities, but
>were essentially equal to each other. That makes sense, as the Kiron
>focuses to 1:1 directly and the Tamron had a 1:1 adapter made for
>it, while the 50/3.5 was optimized for 1:2, with other, true macro,
>Zuikos designed for greater magnification. Now that I have an 80/4,
>I may have to do more testing....
>
>The AF Tamron was the winner at both magnifications over all the
>other lenses. I know it's plastic, and all that, but it clearly
>benefits from improvements in lens design materials and technology
>over the last 2+ decades.
>
>Moose
==
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|