On 09 Apr 2010, at 11:08 PM, Moose wrote:
> Soooo ... Tele and macro are important to me. I already had perfectly
> fine medium teles and longish macros, but the 90/2 was a Zuiko! and a
> legendary performer! Had I bought it for another purpose, perhaps I'd
> have been happy with it. As it was, it underperformed what I already
> - and moved on.
>> The 90/2.0 is a god of a lens, surpassed only by the 250/2.0 in my
>> experience. And it has a whole lot of extra "character" to boot...
>> The most "un-clinical" modern lens I have ever used.
> Interesting. As we've agreed, we have very different photographic
> preferences. I tend to buy a macro for "clinical", not "character".
> use the 90/2 as a fast, normal distance, medium tele. I'd have thought
> the 85/2 would be better for that, but am happy you get so much
> from your 90/2.
>> Anyway, just needed to shout out for me' favourite lens. As you
I think we agree 100% on this, Moose. I have never claimed the 90/2.0
to be the world's
best Macro lens at 1:2 or 1:1. I do love it as a shot telephoto, and I
do believe, however,
in the range of 1:5 to 1:10 (where I do a lot of my "close-ups") it's
the image definitely falls apart both at 1:2, as well as at infinity.
It's pretty silly, enjoying a lens which is not spectacular over its
whole range. As you
said, I appreciate it's character, mostly as a short tele which has
for close-up work, but NOT for true high-magnification.
The images it are giving me sure are pretty though. "Leica glow" has
on the pseudo-internal-luminosity the 90 Macro gives the objects it
renders, in my
I sometimes feel as if the 90/2.0 was constructed by a team of artists
at Olympus, and
not by engineers.
all the best,
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/