On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, MR THOMAS K GROSS wrote:
|I am thinking about getting a macro lens. My original thought was
|that I would buy the 50mm f2 and use it as my normal lens, too. But
|as I read various e-mails here, the 90 mm f2 gets more press. What
|are the advantages of the 90 mm over the 50 mm. My subjects would
|probably be mostly flowers and and occasional butterfly or
|grasshopper on the plants.
I own a 90/2. You are at a much greater risk of scaring
away butterflies and grasshoppers with a 50mm macro. You
are simply going to be too close for close focusing.
Flowers don't get scared so a 50mm macro is fine with them.
However, with both flower/plantlife and the little critters,
the need to focus closely with a 50mm macro at times carries
a risk of being unable to avoid casting a shadow on the
subject, a most distressing proposition in most instances.
With the 90/2, one can stand almost twice as far back
as with a 50mm macro---thereby severely reducing the risk
of casting a shadow---and still obtain the same image size.
Furthermore, the 90/2 doubles (triples?, quadriples?) as a
great lens for simple portraits and for picking out slices
of a landscape, townscape, etc.
< 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 >
|