Yes, I understand the 50/2 and 90/2 is optimized for both close distances
and infinity (as John A. mentioned, optimized at 1:10). But with the high
price, I expected it can have the same performance as a normal lens at
infinity.
So that means if you want the best result, it is better to take two lenses,
one normal and one macro.
On the other hand I found the 135/4.5 is very good at both infinity and
close distance, it is better than my Zuiko 135/2.8 MC at infinity, an
exceptional good lens. (okay, Zuiko 135/2.8 is not in the class of 100/2.)
C.H.Ling
>
> C.H., just to remind you that a true macro lens performance is optimized
> to be best at _close_ distances, whereas the 100/2 and 55/1.2 are likely
> optimized for best performance at infinity.
>
> IMHO, with the 50/2 and 90/2 macros Olympus did an admirable job of
> balancing these contradictory requirements, but I bet that your above
> results are "by design" rather than an accident.
>
> Cheers,
>
> /Gary Schloss.
> Studio City, CA
> schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|