On 4/9/2010 8:24 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> On 09 Apr 2010, at 12:13 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>
>> (My personal experience with the 90/2 was quite disappointing, but I know
>> that's not universal.)
>>
> You're darn right it's not universal! :-)
Nor am I alone. In past discussions, there have been a handful of others
who have agreed with me, along with a majority who have agreed with you.
If there was a common thread, it might be actual use of a lens labeled
"Macro" for macro use.[Oh, a bit snarky there, Moosie!]
It may have been my particular example, although it appeared to be in
perfect shape. In any case, it was just fine from infinity to about 1:4
or so. By the time you got to 1:2, it's closest focus without
assistance, it was quite noticeably softer than my other macro lenses.
After my Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, all my youthful photography depended on
use of my father's equipment or hand-me-downs. There were a number of
interesting steps along the way. One of the most memorable was when he
bought the 55mm Micro-Nikkor. WOW! As sharp or sharper than the
standard 50/1.4 at normal distances and able to go where I'd not gone
before in close-ups. The 200/4 Nikkor was also important to me. From
Hawkeye through old 6x9 folder, TLR, Praktika and Topcon Super D,
everything had been 'normal' focal length with limited close-focus.
Different fields of view were exciting to me. (I inherited the lenses
along with his F2a, but keep them more as mementos that to use.)
How much due to that history, how much to my unusual visual acuity and
how much to whatever psychological quirks, I have always noticed and
been attracted to homing in on small parts of larger subjects. Nice bed
of flowers? Sure, I'll take a shot or two
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4015.htm>
- then get in close for individual flowers or parts of them - and their
friends. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4017.htm>
Everybody who visits Yosemite Valley takes shots of El Capitan, making
sure to get the whole, majestic 3,000 ft. monolith. How many go to 300mm
to take a shot like this?
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020501_03.htm>
You've seen lots of shots of the valley and its landmarks. How many of
high, hanging valleys on the rim?
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020428-29_22.htm>
- <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020430-501_25.htm>
Sure, there are great trees, including some of the largest in the world,
but there are also tiny ones, surviving in their little rock niches.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020429_11.htm>
Soooo ... Tele and macro are important to me. I already had perfectly
fine medium teles and longish macros, but the 90/2 was a Zuiko! and a
legendary performer! Had I bought it for another purpose, perhaps I'd
have been happy with it. As it was, it underperformed what I already had
- and moved on.
> The 90/2.0 is a god of a lens, surpassed only by the 250/2.0 in my
> experience. And it has a whole lot of extra "character" to boot... The most
> "un-clinical" modern lens I have ever used.
>
Interesting. As we've agreed, we have very different photographic
preferences. I tend to buy a macro for "clinical", not "character". You
use the 90/2 as a fast, normal distance, medium tele. I'd have thought
the 85/2 would be better for that, but am happy you get so much pleasure
from your 90/2.
> Anyway, just needed to shout out for me' favourite lens. As you were...
>
Enjoy!
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|