I have three of the f2 series lenses: 35mm, 50mm macro, and 85mm.
I use the 35mm extensively. I also have the 35mm/2.8 but I prefer the f2 as
I find it easier to focus. I don't think there's a sharpness difference
between them.
The 50 macro is extremely sharp but is really hard to focus for non-macro
distances, so I usually use my >1.1million 50/1.4 instead.
The 85 is nice but I haven't used it enough over the year and a half I've
had it to get to know it well. I think the 100mm f2.8 is sharper and has
better bokeh but I have been keeping the 85 in my bag because I find the 100
makes me stand back too far for portraits (my opinion, I know others like to
have more distance).
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Fort Wayne, Indiana
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
On 11/13/08 11:27 PM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> WayneS wrote:
>> ... The 90/2 is OK, but it had fogging problems with longer exposures.
>
> I was seriously disappointed with the 90/2. Perfectly lovely from about
> 1:4 to infinity. Simply not competitive with my other macros from 1:4 to
> 1:1. Given that it's larger, heavier and more expensive than the 85/2, I
> passed it on to another list member. And yes, I had said this about it
> before offering it for sale.
>
>> ... Best lenses in my book: later 21/2, 24/2.8, 50/2, 35-80/2.8, 100/2 and
>> certain later 50/1.4. If into longer lengths, the 180/2 is nice.
>>
>
> I was never much into the f2 series beyond the core focal lengths. I
> have 28/2, late 50/1.4 and 85/2, all of modest size and weight. I also
> have a 35.2.8, but haven't used it in ages.
>
> As I have moved to digital for most photography, my OM system interest
> has moved even more toward the older, more compact, and thus slower
> lenses. If it's bright, I prefer the 200/5 to the f4 and 135/3.5 to the
> f2.8. They seem more in tune with the OM spirit to me. My wider lenses
> have always been slower, 24/2.8, 21/3.5 and 18/3.5 (no choice there).
>
>> The 18/3.5 is a fun lens. I don't know of any equivalent to it in today's
>> digital world.
> 17mm on the Tamron 17-35 is very nice. Faster than the 18/3.5. Probably
> not quite as sharp in the corners. But it's an in close lens I've mostly
> used it in natural situations or architectural interiors, where DOF
> frequently comes into play at the edges. Way too wide for landscape,
> where edges are mostly in the sharp zone. But take a look at the edges
> in the Hearst Castle interiors below. A very useful lens.
>
> A fair amount of waveform distortion, but PTLens straightens it right
> out. I posted these while you were away.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/Oak01.htm>
> and
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan01.htm>
> and
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan02.htm>
> and
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Morro%20Bay/OakCan03.htm>
> and
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/HearstCastle/GStair.htm>
>
> Like the 18/3.5, it's great for tight places where you can't back up any
> further.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Shasta/slides/_MG_2144cr.htm
> l>
>
> Here again, he tree was right in my face, and it was impossible to move
> back.
>
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/ElfinForest/slides/_MG_1203ptl.html>
>
>
> The interiors of Hearst Castle are almost all at 17mm.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/index.html>
>
>> But for macro, I would go with bit based cameras these days. I've been using
>> a Can*n 180/3.5 macro of late, and do not miss the 90/2 at all.
> I've been very happy with the Tamron 90/2.8.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|