orava@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>Dear Zuikoholics,
>
>Zuikoholism is bothering me again. I have 90/2 that I use very much for macro
>shots with 4Ti and with E-1. I have began to play with an idea of buying
>50/3,5
>macro. They are quite cheap. I am just curious that do I really NEED that
>50/3,5?
>
><...>
>What about sharpness and contrast? Is 90/2 so superior to 50/3,5 that I
>shouldn't even consider it? I bet that the difference is not that huge...
>
Actually, the difference may well be in the opposite direction from what
you expect. At least in the macro range. The one test I know of (thanks,
Brian) that includes macro shows it to be a fine, but not outstanding,
macro lens <http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/%7Ebj/zuiko/101413.htm>.
And Gary's tests show the 50/3.5 to be the equal of the 90/2 at 1:40 at
f5.6 and below. My personal experience leads me to believe the 50/3.5 is
a better macro lens from say about 1:4 to 1:1 than the 90/2. I have a
lot of experience with two 50/3.5s. My 90/2 experience is more limited,
but I have not been blown away by macro results from it. Not bad at all,
but not the magic one might expect. The 50/3.5 is a very fine lens.
In a controlled situation on tripod or stand, with plenty of light and
with a stationary subject, I would definitely (well, do, actually) use
the 50/3.5 for macro work. Where the 90/2 shines is in it's speed, which
allows it to snap into focus more obviously and in darker situations
than the 50/3.5. It is also very sharp and contrasty at normal and
moderate close focus distances.
Enough rational to NEED one?? :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|