Gary wrote
>This "stepped" limitation in magnification is rather a pain in the behind.
>That is a major limitation of macros that incorporate floating elements.
>(The second is that they decrease in focal length the closer you focus!)
>Plus the 50 and 90mm macros aren't even optimized for greater than 1:2
>magnification.
And also added quite correctly
>Final note: Forget all of this and just shoot whatever you have and see if
>you like the results. If you do, then you have saved yourself a ton on
money
>that can go elsewhere. Doing macro work the way perfectionist Olympus
>designers developed the system is EXPENSIVE. But, they addressed the
>problems in designing lenses for greater than 1:2 magnification and many
>other manufacturers just made their macros go to 1:1, regardless of
inherent
>optical limitations. In another words, marketing dictated that engineering
do
>it, whether or not it was feasible from a performance point of view.
Within
>Olympus, they just said "no." That's laudable.
Any lens can go to 1:1 from infinity. It's just not that good. Having said
that, Gary is spot on. I've taken some great photos with my 50mm f3.5.
Magnificant lens. With or without tube. John Shaw wrote in a book once "You
can have great gear and take average photos, and have average gear and get
great photos. It depends on how you use it".
If you need the mythical 1:1, get it somehow. The quality will be near to
perfect with the 50mm. I've had a 90mm Tamron with the 65-116 tube set
somewhere and a 400mm close up lens. Good results. No idea about the macro
ratio. Do what you can. Enjoy. Then do it again to enjoy some more.
Foxy
< 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 >
|