38mm gets you very close. Emphasis on very. The 135 basically gets you to
1/2 life size - an object 48 by 72 mm. Both go on the auto telescopic tube,
which is a great invention by the way. 38 is physically close. 135 gets you
away from the subject. Look at the eSif for the angles of view as well.
Handheld? Generally I don't believe you can handhold any macro shot. Now
someone will come up with something tp prove this statement wrong, using
flash on stationary object, no wind etc. But forget handheld.
I have the telescopic tube and other lenses. I would like the 135, but it's
not going to happen.
How close do you want to go?
Foxy
----- Original Message -----
I'm an amatuer hobbiest interested in blowing things up: errr... making
closeups of bugs and flowers. I've progressed from screw-in closeup
diopters to generic ext. tubes to a dedicated OM 50/3.5 macro. I really
like the 50/3.5, BTW. Now I've got an opportunity to get either a 38/2.8
macro or possibly a 135/4.5 macro. Apparently either would require an
additional purchase of either Auto Bellows or Telescopic Auto Tube.(Am I
right that each would require tubes or bellows?) From reading between the
lines in a 1984 ed. "The OM System Lens Handbook", it might appear to me
that the 38/2.8 macro with 65-116 Tele Auto Tube is a pretty good
combination for handheld nature closeups. However, I'm leary of spending
that much money and having to get that close, only to find out something
that makes me regret what (for me) would be a substantial cash outlay.
Getting lens touching close to some insects and plants is a cause of
concern, but for a variety of future projects larger-than-life
representations would be an asset.
To recap: my interest is strictly non-specific and amatuer in nature; (ie:
no specific requirements,... yet). Money _is_ an issue. Convience and
actual useability and flexibilty are other issues. I probably won't get
much use out of anything that's too much hassle to set-up and carry in a
waist case and mount/shoot off a very conventional light Bogen or Tiltall
tripod.
Anybody out there with various macro experience care to comment? I'm open
to comments on lenses, tubes, bellows, film, lighting, tricks, etc. Has
anybody bought either the 38/2.8 or 135/4.5 or bellows or auto tubes and
regretted it?
Or has purchasing these items meant complete financial freedom, endless
party invitations and objects of sexual desire wantonly throwing themselves
into the purchasers path? <g>
Thanks very much,
Mike Swaim
< 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 >
< 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 >
|