Well, I've owned both and now only own the 90/2. I do use it primarily for
macro or near-macro, so perhaps that is the reason, but I like the 'look' of
the 90/2 better. The 100/2 is almost too sharp, while the out-of-focus
highlights of the 90/2 are buttery smooth. I actually prefer the 90/2 for
portraits too, as it results in just a touch softer shots. The 100/2 can be,
in my eye, too harsh. Every pore shows up remarkably well.
Tom
> Hi,
>
> I am the happy owner of a 100 mm/2, which I think is a wonderful lens. Big
> and heavy compared to the 85 and 100/2.8 lenses, but also better, I think,
> and with a useful semi-macro function.
>
> I have only once seen a Zuiko 90 mm and with all the applause for this
lens,
> I wonder if it is actually more desirable than the 100/2 (apart from the
> full macro facility).
>
> According to an old test, the 100 seems slightly better at bigger
apertures,
> but there might be other differences in the 90's favour that can't be
judged
> from those test figures.
>
> What's your verdict?
>
> Thank you, Moose, for the informative coverage of the 50/55 mm lenses. My
55
> mm is one of the radioactive ones, I think. I'd better test how it
performs,
> colourwise, compared to the 50/1.4 and 1.8.
>
> Regards, Lars
>
< 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 >
|