The lenses do perform differently at different repro ratios and apertures. I
tested both lenses at f2.8, 5.6, 11,16,22 for 1:1 and 1:2 as well as some
non macro focus distances. I even tried an assortment of extension tubes and
2x converters to get beyond 1:1 macro. I shot with sunlight directly in
front, on the side, and in back. I shot a white daisy in bright sunlight. I
shot directly at a clear light bulb. I shot lowlight indoors. A few hundred
shots in all. The Vivitar 90/2.5 is the most consistent across the macro
range, hence it gets the nod as being the better macro lens. The Kiron has
some CA and color fringing in very high contrast areas and doesn't have all
the resolving power of the 90/2.5. The 90/2.5 does lose contrast in bright
light near infinity, but my long lens hood takes care of most of that.
I still have a Zuiko 50/3.5 which is very good at 1:2, but performance drops
at 1:1 with the 25mm extension tube. I also had/tested the Zuiko 90/2 which
is a excellent performer wide open, but just mediocre stopped down for
macro, and doesn't do 1:1 well. f/5.6-16 is my sweet spot for macro and I
much prefer a lens that does well stopped down. I also had a Sigma 150/2.8
macro which is a an excellent performing macro lens. At macro distances I
think my 90/2.5 is at least as sharp as that lens. Even when tested wide
open.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Moose
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:58 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Invasion of the Monarchs
I have both the Tamron 90/2.5, early 49mm filter ring version, and the
Kiron 105/2.8. I've done some testing of them, the Zuiko 50/3.5 and
Tamron 90/2.8 Di in EF mount on the 5D.
One conclusion I came to is that these lenses perform differently at
different repro ratios and apertures. You cannot generalize from
performance at 1:1, for example, to performance at 1:2. I found the MF
Tamron and Kiron to be a stand-off at 1:2. There are different qualities
to the images, but I can't say one is better than another. The 50/3.5
was outstanding at 1:2 and still good, but not the best, at 1:1.
Best overall performer at both 1:1 and 1:2 was the latest Tamron in AF
mount for EOS. It also hit its optimum performance at wider apertures
than the MF lens, which can be good or bad, depending on what you are
trying to do.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|