Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron

Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron
From: "Fast Primes" <fast_primes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 10:05:18 -0400
Hi Tom and Walt,

I'm wondering if you ever shot the OM 90 against any of the popular non-OM macros--Tamron, Vivitar, etc. With it's ability to focus to 2 feet or so, the OM100F2.0 is already a quasi-macro and it was using it as such, that I became interested in real macro. I think it is the visibly superior "bokeh" which causes me to still prefer the 100F2.0 over the Vivitar S1 90 for semi-macro shots. I'd be interested in knowing whether the Zuiko 90 still has that special "something" over the Tamron. I'm coming to the reluctant conclusion, that if I stay interested in macro, I may have to re-acquire the Zuiko 90!

fast_primes

From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
It's interesting, because in the same situation, I sold the 100/2.  Part of
it is that I shoot a lot of flowers and the 90/2 is just amazing.  Can't
really explain it all though.

Tom
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Fast Primes" <fast_primes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron


> Hi Walt,
>
> I once had both the 90F2.0 Macro and 100F2.0 OM lenses. While, I found
> no obvious differences in their respective optical performance, the
> distinctly smaller 100F2.0 was the lens I decided to keep and sold the
> bigger 90. A few years later, I found myself plunging deep into
> macro--seriously shooting flowers and butterflies and such for the first
> time in my life. Along the way, I acquired a Vivitar Series 1 90F2.5.
> However, while the 90 is very sharp, there is still "something" that the
> 100F2.0 does better. I will be interested in your observations of the OM
and
> Tamron 90s.
>
> fast_primes

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:49:30 -0400
From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2 Zuiko vs. 90/2.8 Tamron

I don't think the 90/2 is sharper than the 100/2, in fact I think the
opposite. That's kind of why I like it. The 100/2 is so sharp that portraits
didn't seem flattering.

Tom

> I've also got the 100/2 Zuiko.  It's one of my favorites.  It gets
> used a lot shooting landscapes, nearly as much as all the wide
> angles combined.  I'll include it in my comparison of the two
> macros.  If the 90/2 is sharper than the 100/2, then I'll have to
> try it against the 50/2 Zuiko, which I consider the best of the
> Zuikos -- at least the best of the ones I've got.
>
> Walt

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz