On 12/21/2015 11:39 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
Moose de Sharp wrote:
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.
I recall, back in the days of lengthy threads on such things, thinking from the contents of the posts that those who
loved the 90/2 were generally those who were using it for general shooting, and maybe moderate C-U, but not real macro.
When I first got mine, I recall puzzlement and consternation at the early results. I thought I must be doing something
wrong. Further, careful testing showed that it just wasn't very sharp at macro distances. Remember, I had already been
using the 50/3.5, 135/4.5, Tamron 90/2.5 and Kiron 105/2.8 extensively for true macro magnifications, so I was comparing
to those results, not to casual C-U use. The 80/4 Auto bellows lens, BTW, is damn fine, as well. As I noted, the 50/3.5,
while still good at 1:1 with extension, is not as good as at 2:1. The 80/4 is the next real step from the 50/3.5 @ 1:2
down to 1:1 and further, but I didn't have mine then.
I could have got a sample variant macro lemon, although it was beautiful from ∞ to say 1:10 or so. Physically, it was
almost pristine, with no signs of abuse or harm. I could have kept it, but already had the lovely 85/2 - and I was
pissed ...
Macro Vision Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|