Hi all,
Well, I'm getting ready to purchase my first new Zuiko in 20 years (insert
sound of shuddering intake of breath) and am hemming and hawing about which
way to go: 100 f/2 or 90 f/2 Macro. Cost is not the issue--this will
probably be my last lens purchase (Hah! Listen to this foolish man......),
and I just want the very best for my purpose.
They are very close in performance according to Gary's tests, with the 100
getting a slight edge, especially in the f/11-22 range, eh? Size and weight
are so similar as to be a meaningless difference. The built-in hood on the
100 is nice, but not a critical point.
I am doing mostly nature photography with a keen interest in close-up and
macro work, although interests continue to grow with an eye on portaiture.
I am not planning on doing any flat copy work, so lens corrections for this
are not high on the list of needs. Presently I have a 100 f/2.8 and a 50
f/3.5 macro, plus a Telescopic Auto Tube 65-116 and a Oly 25mm auto tube to
work with. Oly 7mm & 14mm auto tubes are on the shopping list if need be.
So those of you who have either (or both?!)--whatta ya think? Is the
convenience of having the built-in macro capability of the 90 worth a
<slightly> less sharp f/11-22 range used so much in close-ups? I use
extension tubes a lot, so using them with the 100 f/2 is not a big deal. I
must say fiddling with tubes while squatting in tall grass in a drizzling
rain is a pain in the patootie, but if the slides come back with retina
slicing resolution, that inconvenience is quickly dismissed.
Can the difference between these lenses but seen in enlargements? Is there
any other criteria that should be considered?
Your input is appreciated--I'm starting to twitch like a horse in a fly swarm
with indecision.
-Tim Clark
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|