Hi Moose,
I agree with you that nobody can judge lens resolution with some thumb
pics on my website. This wasn´t my purpose at all. While I understand
that 90/2 is optimized for macro work, comparing it with other
manufacturers is still a piece of art.
For instance: I work a lot with Zuiko Digital 50 f2. This lens is also
optimized for close distances but resolution at infinity is impressive.
I was able to try some good Nikon and Canon prime lenses and none of
them were comparable. You can have a look to this website. I sent some
pictures to Andrzej Wrotniak to help him to write his review about this
lens.
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/zd-50m.html
Resolution is hair-raising even at f2! You can see a bigger picture here.
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/_img/smp/e1/david-2534-1.x.jpg
What I am trying to say is that Olympus sometimes makes the impossible
to create some lenses. Phil Askey also reported in Dpreview that Zuiko
Digital 50 f2 is the sharpest lens ever tested in his labs.
Olympus is the king creating lenses and comparing lenses of the same
price with other manufacturers is nearly impossible to beat Zuiko glass.
I am looking forward to buying the new Zuiko Digital 25/2,8. ;-) It
reminds me too much to the legendary Zuiko 40/2.
I also worked with 85/2, 135/3,5 and I agree with you they are great
performers. I have some pics taken with le petit 135/3,5 here.
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/img0034.jpg
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/img0043.jpg
http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/img0044.jpg
Thank you very much for your compliments on my pictures.
Very kind regards,
Dave
Moose escribió:
> David Irisarri wrote:
>
>> ... OM Zuiko 90/2 hasn´t got any ED element and no other lens on the earth
>> can beat it!
>>
>>
> Here I must disagree.
>
>> I have scanned some pictures with my LS-4000 ED and my Ektachrome E-100S
>> slides were razor sharp!!! Bokeh is charming!
>>
>> You have some thumbs here:
>>
>> http://victorian.fortunecity.com/byzantium/656/index_1.html
>>
>> Hope you like them.
>>
>>
> I do indeed like them. And I appreciate your enthusiasm for a lens you
> love. However:
>
> - It is simply impossible to judge anything more about lens quality some
> of the bokeh on the size images you have posted.
>
> - Not everyone who uses a 90mm macro lens uses it primarily for
> portraiture. When I bought a 90/2, I already had Tamron 90/2.5, Kiron
> 105/2.8 and Zuiko 50/3.5 & 135/4.5 macros. My experience was that the
> 90/2 was a wonderful lens down to about 1:4. Below that, it was simply
> not as sharp as the others; distinctly poorer at 1:2. I am not the only
> one on the Oly list over the years to have this experience.
>
> While the 90/2 is wonderful for what you use it for, I think your
> blanket statement that "... no other lens on the earth can beat it!" is
> simply untrue. to the extent that anyone reads your praise and buys
> Oly's rating of the lens as a macro lens and their statement " The
> exclusive Olympus focus aberration correction mechanism guarantees first
> class picture sharpness all the way from minimum focus to infinity."
> they will be fooled into buying something less suited for macro than
> other, generally less expensive, alternatives.
>
> - "... no other lens on the earth can beat it for portrait photography!"
> might be closer to accurate. Again, though, many list members over the
> years have done direct comparisons of the 90/2 with other lenses.
> Without digging into the archives, i distinctly recall the late, and
> much missed, Walt comparing the 90/2 to a Vivitar 90/2.8, 1:1 macro for
> landscape work. Walt was an excellent photographer and careful worker.
> His conclusion was an absolute toss-up for color, sharpness and bokeh.
>
> He said there were subtle differences in the images, but that neither
> one was clearly superior.
>
> - The 90/2, which I'd been wanting for years, simply added nothing for
> me when I finally got one. Excellent portrait and landscape lens, but I
> already had the also wonderful 85/2, just that little bit soft wide open
> for portraits, very sharp from F2.8 and with famously good bokeh - and
> which is smaller and lighter. The 85/2 also has a floating element group
> "ensuring superior image quality even at close distances.". Others on
> the list say it is excellent with extension tubes. I don't know from
> personal experience, as I use a macro lens for macro.
>
> The 90/2 was also a so-so macro lens, and I already had better. So I
> sold it on to another list member who was not a macro person and seemed
> to like it. So, from my perspective, super lens for many uses. Best for
> all? No.
>
> Again, I do love the images you make with it, both this set and
> previously posted ones. I'm glad you have a lens with which you are so
> happy It didn't work for me. *Cada perico a su estaca, cada changa a su
> mecate.
>
> Moose*
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
