Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape

Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2.0 vs 135/3.5 for distant landscape
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:48:21 -0800
Dawid Loubser wrote:
>> Another list member showed 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? 

Walt Wayman wrote: Re: the wonderfull 100mm f2
> Yes, it is!  I think it and the 50/2 are neck-and-neck for the best of the 
> Zuikos, and that's saying a lot.
>
> ...
>
> I'd give up the 35-80/2.8 or the 90/2 before I'd let go the 100/2.  I feel 
> pretty much the same way about the 135/4.5, too.
>   

Walt Wayman wrote: Re: When was the 90/2 Macro introduced?
 > I agree.  That's why I'm not missing mine.  :-)  I used it just a few 
days ago for some Velvia shots of early crocus blooms.  The 100/2 Zuiko 
is sharper, and for most macro work, the 90/2.8 Tamron is just as good, 
notwithstanding the Zuiko "magic," which doesn't always show up.  But it 
IS a Zuiko, and once a Zuiko gets here, it doesn't leave.*
 >

 > From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 >> It is not about the sharpness. It's about the bokeh.  The 90/2 is 
the smoothest lens I have ever used.  I miss it.
========================================================
I believe he is talking about the one I bought from him.


> I have a hard time imagining superior in terms of optics, I really do.
>   

Open your mind. :-)

Moose

* It was a bit sad researching this. Walt left before his beloved Zuikos.
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz