I'm the heretic who shot a roll of test film with the 90/2 Zuiko and the 90/2.8
Tamron and concluded that one was no better than the other, except that the
Zuiko was a stop faster and the Tamron went to 1:1 without the need for
extension tubes. Otherwise, the Provia 100F slides were all but identical,
except, I also noted, although both claimed to be 90mm, one -- I forget which
now -- was obviously a little "longer" than the other'n.
BUT -- big "but" too -- now that I've got an E-1, I find the 90/2 Zuiko to be a
killer lens, the equivalent of a 180/2 macro, essentially doing the 1:1 thing
because of the 2X factor. For some reason, with film, I can't tell it and the
Tamron apart, but the Zuiko just seems to work way more better with the E-1 --
a touch of Zuikomagic maybe.
I've found that with the E-1 my most-used "old" Zuikos are the 50/2, 90/2,
100/2, and 180/2.8, giving me, of course, 100/2 and 180/2 macros, 200/2 and
360/2.8 teles. Of course, there's also the 80-200/2.8 and 300/2.8 Tamrons.
And since the sky is clear and the moon looks like it's about full now, I may
have to dig out the 1250/10 Celestron tonight. :-)
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I went through that. I've had a nice 85/2 for some time, but kept
> feeling I was missing something by not having the magical 90/2. Perhaps
> you know that zuikoholic "itch"? So I finally found a nice one at a
> reasonable price from a list member.
>
> What can I say? I was simply underwhelmed. Perfectly fine lens, but no
> better than the 85/2 for general use, and bigger, heavier and with the
> aperture ring in the "wrong", place. In macro use, where it should
> shine, given that its part of the name, I don't think it's as good as a
> tamron SP 90/2.5 or the Kiron 105/2.8.
>
> I know many list members swear by the 90/2, and I'm happy for them.
> There is a minority who find it less than spectacular.
>
> As a zuikoholic and with some of Walt's tendency to keep every bit I
> ever buy, it was a hard desision to send it on, but I'll have to say I
> don't miss it. The 85/2 is just so much more "OM", compact, light and an
> excellent lens. For macro, the Kiron is better and goes directly to 1:1
> without extension tubes. I'd buy the Kiron or the Viv or Tamron 90/2.8
> lenses that also go to 1:1 before the 90/2 for macro.
>
> Moose
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|