I'm trying to downsize to my smallest kit in ages. I've had bunches of lenses in the cupboard for a while. I'm down to 9 lenses and 4 bodies. Some of those are out heading out the door.
I want to work towards having CV 15, Sigma 19, G28, G45, FL 55, a 90 macro, MD 135.
I've got all of these lenses. I've been down this road before and played with several lenses in this range. I settled with G90, but didn't use it much because of it's long MFD. I think I'd prefer a macro in this range. I'd prefer 90 (or even 85, but the only 85 macro is the Nikon 3.5 and that's too slow)
How good are the Tamron 90/2.5 and Sigma 90/2.8 compared with the Tokina AT-X? Should I just save up and get the Bokina. It's regarded as the best. I'm okay with lenses only being able to do 1:2. Any other lenses I've missed?
I'm trying to downsize to my smallest kit in ages. I've had bunches of lenses in the cupboard for a while. I'm down to 9 lenses and 4 bodies. Some of those are out heading out the door.
I want to work towards having CV 15, Sigma 19, G28, G45, FL 55, a 90 macro, MD 135.
I've got all of these lenses. I've been down this road before and played with several lenses in this range. I settled with G90, but didn't use it much because of it's long MFD. I think I'd prefer a macro in this range. I'd prefer 90 (or even 85, but the only 85 macro is the Nikon 3.5 and that's too slow)
How good are the Tamron 90/2.5 and Sigma 90/2.8 compared with the Tokina AT-X? Should I just save up and get the Bokina. It's regarded as the best. I'm okay with lenses only being able to do 1:2. Any other lenses I've missed?...Show more →
i get horrible sensor reflections on the NEX stopped down with the tamron. otherwise it's a great lens and my only complaint would be rather dull colors.
sebboh wrote:
i get horrible sensor reflections on the NEX stopped down with the tamron. otherwise it's a great lens and my only complaint would be rather dull colors.
you should get the OM 90/2 macro.
It's surely great - and seriously small (but dense) I think the Tokina 90 AT-X is the best of the best though. MFLenses did a test against the CV 125 APO and it was a toss-up. I missed a few a couple months back for under 300. If I can get one at that price, I'll do it.
plasticmotif wrote:
... I think the Tokina 90 AT-X is the best of the best though.
Assuming you mean the Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 Macro, it's the same lens as the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro. I've owned both. They were both excellent.
The AT-X scored 4.6 on the old photodo average MTF tests. That's one of the top nine highest scores in their database. The only lens with a higher score is the Canon EF 200/1.8L, at 4.8. It's a logarithmic scale with a theoretical top end of 5.
Yup. It and the G45 were in the top 5. AFAIR. If my junk in the for sale section would sell, I'd have enough to to buy it without tapping into my 'real money'.
My wife just told me she needs to use 'a macro camera' for photographing her subjects for her dissertation. I was going to keep searching for a Bokina to come up for sale, but they seem rare. I guess I'll just let her use the current Sigma 50 1:1 lens i've got now and buy the G90 again.
If you like the IQ from the G90, you could transplant the optics/optical block into a new helicoid/body such as a macro body, which is something I'm planing to do when I get one.
And I can't locate the thread where I posted this one (I wish Google would index the .jpg file names; apparently they don't):
Tineye or google image search should be able to find it.
The Contax short tele Sonnars have an uncommon grace and balance that gets way past 'sharpness', not that they are lacking in that department. A fine photo, twoeye.
I'm too looking for something in this range, primarily for landscape and other static subjects. I'm reluctant to go for an SLR-mount lens due to size and most M-mount offerings are more than I'd like to spend on a lens in this range, so the Elmar-C seems to fit the bill, on paper at least.
kj_vogelius wrote:
How does the Elmar-C 90 stack up?
It's a real classic with low contrast, high resolution and a tad of glow wide open. Very nice for portraits at f/4 and should do good for landscapes stopped down if you don't mind a bit of PP to bring contrast up.
Edit: The Voigtländer 90/3.5 is sort of the opposite. High contrast and no glow at all, but also swirly bokeh and it can be really nasty at longer distances. I personally didn't like it except for when shooting closeups (which I seldom do).
Makten wrote:
It's a real classic with low contrast, high resolution and a tad of glow wide open. Very nice for portraits at f/4 and should do good for landscapes stopped down if you don't mind a bit of PP to bring contrast up.
Edit: The Voigtländer 90/3.5 is sort of the opposite. High contrast and no glow at all, but also swirly bokeh and it can be really nasty at longer distances. I personally didn't like it except for when shooting closeups (which I seldom do).
Thanks Makten! Sounds good. I usually prefer lower contrast as long as the resolution is there since it's easier to add rather than remove contrast shooting digitally. Will keep an eye open for a good copy.
