I picked up a Tamron 90 f2.5 around Christmas time, partly because it was
available at a price I could afford, and largely on Larry's reccomendation (if I
recall he described the bokeh as 'buttery smooth') The images have really
stunned me. The bokeh is fantastic, and the lens is very sharp. I have been very
pleased. Mine is the oldest version (which takes a 49mm filter) As I recall the
somewhat newer version of the f2.5 is supposedly even better. The 90 goes to 1:2
without an extender and will also give you a little better working distance than
the 50. With an extension tube you can go to 1:1. I have been very pleased and
the lens has tempered (but, alas, not cured) my lust for a Zuiko 90 f/2.
Jim Couch
Tom Scales wrote:
> OK, I'll jump into the fray. There are so many choices, that it is truly a
> tough call. I clearly agree the 50/3.5 is a fantastic starting place.
> Fairly inexpensive, very compact, very sharp. The only 'limitation' is that
> the bokeh isn't very smooth.
>
> For around the same money, you can get a 3rd party 90/2.x (Vivitar, Tamron,
> Tokina). Maybe I missed Larry jumping in, but I hope he does, as he's very
> knowledgeable here. If I remember, the order of quality is Tokina, then a
> tie between the Vivitar and Tamron 90/2.5, followed by the Tamron 90/2.8. A
> decent example is in the the $150 range.
>
> Moving upscale, the 50/2 is outstanding, a 'better' 3.5. Very useable as a
> normal lens and plenty fast and with much improved boken.
>
> That all brings me to my personal favorite. The Zuiko 90/2. If you don't
> want to spend the money, don't ever try one. Is it better than the 3rd
> party -- probably not. But it is so wonderful.....
>
> Even if I got completely out of OM, I'd keep a body and the 90/2.
>
> Tom
< 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 >
|