I guess my hands are cold and dead, as I let go my prime 21/2
and 90/2. I would go for a 21/2 (later version) more than a 90/2.
The 90/2 is OK, but it had fogging problems with longer
exposures. I think the 50/2 has better contrast.
I would rather have the 100/2 over the 90/2 myself, oh yes, I still have
the 100/2. The 21/2, if a later version, is a worthy pursuit.
Interesting choices one makes when letting go, versus acquire.
Best lenses in my book: later 21/2, 24/2.8, 50/2, 35-80/2.8, 100/2
and certain later 50/1.4. If into longer lengths, the 180/2 is nice.
If into exotic, the 24/shift is like an expensive diamond ring.
The 18/3.5 is a fun lens. I don't know of any equivalent to it
in today's digital world.
But for macro, I would go with bit based cameras these days.
I've been using a Can*n 180/3.5 macro of late, and do not miss
the 90/2 at all. There was never a decent lens hood for the 90/2.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|