Bob
Thanks for your advice, but I don't really have a choice about trying
it first. They don't sit around on shop shelves in this country,
unfortunately. But I have been using my Tamron rather sporadically,
putting it on my cameras when I want to take close-ups, although it
is a perfectly good all-purpose lens. I don't think that I need real
macros, but I do wish to get closer than the 85/2 allows.
I hope that, with the 90/2, I shall be able (and want) to use it more
universally. It was an urge I had (to buy it), but having equipped
myself with it, I shall make a judgement and decide which to keep -
much as I did when I bought the 50/1.2 - it convinced me that I don't
need the extra speed as I don't use 50s that much.
Finally, the photo of the 90/2 that I saw in the OM4Ti brochure
really persuaded me to look for one.
Cheers
Chris
At 12:55 -0500 31/7/02, Robert Gries wrote:
Chris:
In my experience I have found that the 85/2 is an invaluable lens that
can be as "normal" or "tele" as you want it to be. I also found after
using a 90/2 I didn't like it very much at all. To me, if one wants
infinity to (approx.) 1/2 life size, the 135/4.5 and AT work perfectly!
Much easier to focus, better working distance, better bokeh... I know
that the 90/2 could also be brought to 1:1 with some extra extension
tubes, but if you are going to go to the trouble of putting something on
the lens, why not make it a 80/4?
I would also suggest that you get the feel of the 90/2 before you
purchase it. To me it does not feel like a Zuiko, and isn't very nice
to use. Again, I am probably in the minority on this one, but I'd say
don't buy the 90/2.
Bob
--
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
?
+44 (0)7092 251126
mailto:imagopus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
... a nascent photo library.
< 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 >
|