Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] (Fwd) wildflower macro

Subject: Re: [OM] (Fwd) wildflower macro
From: "Hans van Veluwen" <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 13:40:01 +0100
: What would I gain [or lose] by using a 90 or 100 macro instead of the 50.
: [I'd carry one or the other..]

A lot of weight. That is, from the lens. You might loose weight by carrying it.
You also get a bit, not much, longer working distance (40cm. with the 90mm macro
lens vs. 25cm. with the 50mm macro lens). Some 100mm macro lenses (like the 
Kiron
105/2.8 I own) go all the way to 1:1. If you really want a long working 
distance,
go for the 135/4.5 macro + variable extension tube 65~116mm. But this combi is
heavy too. Since weight is an issue, stick to the 50mm/3.5 lens. The 50mm/F2 and
90mm/F2 macro's are supposed to be superior, but unless you're prepared to 
carry a
rocksteady tripod it will never show in your pictures.

: what tripod would you carry, if light weight, low angle,
: and quick-release were all important. How about if you factor price in.

In my experience lightweight tripods are useless. I suggest stopping down to F22
and use a flash to freeze movements. For very low level shots of small plants
however a tabletop tripod (like the one's made by Leitz and Manfrotto) are a 
good
choice. You do need the Varimagnifinder for comfortable operation.

: What are the top three [or 5?] accessories you'd throw in your pockets or
: daypack.

1) spare batteries
2) lens hoods
3) polarizing filter
4) didymium filter
5) flash + flash diffuser and/or mini tripod + Varimagnifinder.

: What do you want to brag about that has petals.

I love macro shots of plants. I creep all the way inside with the 38 and 20mm
lenses.


H@nz



< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz