Hmm,
Drifting a bit here but:
The CV 90/3,5 is 390gm and 62.5mm focused at infinity vs the Z. 90 at
550gm and 71mm. The CV is obviously slower and goes to about 1:3.5 mag
but it is very sharp wide open from the images I've seen. The bokeh
appears super nice which seems to be a consistent feature of the CV SL
line. A list member had a CV lens FS in OM mount but I can't find the
post.
Perhaps it was for this lens. The Viv S1 90/2.5 is very nice and
perhaps if I didn't have one form a list member, I would have sought
one of the 90/2 Zuikos out. (not sure, given the price of admission
and alternatives though)
The CV125/2.5 macro goes 1:1 and weighs in at 690gm and 88mm. I have
this one and have been smitten by it. One fault is that it does not
have Zuiko on it. It focuses the "wrong" way and is quite long at
1:1. It does have floating elements and the VF is still very bright at
max mag. (The Viv s1 90mm macro with the matched TC loses 2 stops
immediately with the TC.) Mooses's excellent explanation of the stop
down mechanism for OM explains the vibration induced w/o aperture
prefire. This lens does not have a tripod mount and is quite subject
to this effect at higher mags. A shot filled bean bag seems as good as
MLU/Aperture prefire from a small experiment I did.
The Z. 85 f2 with ext tubes makes for a very small/light kit.
Mike
Dawid L says:
Also, the 90/2.0 is tiny compared to the competition from Zeiss and
Voigtlander.
So, the incredible small size argument stays true with the 90/2.0.
On 18 Jun 2009, at 6:34 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> for example, admiration for
> the 85/2 doesn't diminish my love for the big honking 90/2.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|