> Another list member sh owed me his 100/2 and noted that it was far
> superior
> in general use to the 90.
Hi bill, in which ways? Are you talking handling, or optics? I have a
hard time
imagining superior in terms of optics, I really do. Also, the 90/2.0
has a really
smooth and quick focus throw for most "normal" distances, it only
becomes long in
the macro range. The 90/2.0 is not very big, and surprisingly short
for what it is.
A bit fat yes (not the prettiest lens ever made), and the aperture
ring is at the
back, but I prefer it that way (like on the 35-80/2.8) because it is
right next
to the shutter speed dial, so you can shift settings while keeping the
same exposure
in literally one action.
Anyway, I am just curious...
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|