Moose de Sharp wrote:
> I've never thought of it as lowly.
OK, how about "humble"?
> Then again, I found the 90/2 to be lowly. If it didn't claim to be a Macro
> lens, I'd have no complaint, but past about 1:4, it went all mushy. Likely
> the only OM lens I bought, tried out, and sold on fairly promptly (which is
> why it wasn't in the above test.)
I've always wondered about sample variability. While you aren't the
only person to have found issues with the 90/2, it certainly is not an
universal opinion.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|