HowardPhoto wrote:
>The 90 macro was listed in a OM brochure I found dating to 1986. But I think
>I first saw one in 1984. Isn't it one of the sharpest Zuiko lenses ever
>made?
>
>
Not closer than about 1:5 or so it isn't.
This may be a minority opinion, but I know I'm not alone in it.
The 50/3.5 is considerably better in actual macro country. I assume the
80/4 and 50/2 are also actual macro lenses. I've seldom used the 135/4.5
that close, but I've not experienced the same disappointment either.
It's not awful or anything like that, and it's quite nice at normal
distances. But when you start slipping down toward and then past 1:2, it
is noticably less sharp than my 50/3.5s, Tamron 90/2.5 and Kiron 105/2.8.
I really tried to like it. :-( I'll stick with the 85/2 and/or 100/2.8
for general purpose use. They are really hard to beat in that general
focal length range, small, light, sharp.... I had a pleasant time
shooting with the 85/2 and OM-4 on an overcast
Worldwide_Picture_Day_2006. Still a mighty fine combo.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|