Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Apr 26, 2010 at 03:55 PM -0400, Stan Yoder wrote: > What's the general poop on this lens, in both ranges? Seems a clever > option > to Visos. I picked mine up used, and use it only on film. I like it a lot. It's a great travel lens. Small in the bag, and good quality on the camera. It gives me more reach than my 50 at a distance, and gives me better closeups close in than any other lens I have. This could more or less be replaced by the 75/2, but I'd rather have a small 90 than a larger 75, just because I own a 50. And it uses 39mm filters. Nice. The 'macro' adapter is cute. It lets you go down to 1:3 - about the size of an index card. I don't use it that much, but it is useful. It's not going to replace a true macro setup. Again, if you are traveling and wanted to get a closeup of some trinket, carving, or script, etc. it's perfect. Sure a 100mm macro lens with an extension ring would accomplish the same thing (and better) on an SLR, but if I have to pack light because I'm on a trip to Japan, having the little extra flexibility in something that's the size of a deck of cards is perfect. I don't shoot that much macro and find this fits most of my needs. If you are into shooting true macro, bugs and stuff, get a Canon and 100mm macro (great setup). At those reproduction ratios, TTL viewing is superior. Think of it as an idea travel 90, and not a true macro lens. The macro adapter is just icing on the cake that extends it's capabilities.