The 50 f3.5 Macro is a wonderful little lens as you have pointed out, but it
does
not offer a lot of working distance which is why I sold mine. I still have not
decided if I am actually going to get a 90 f2 or not. Am also kicking around the
possibility of a 135 macro to use with my 65-116 auto tubes - now THAT combo
gives me some working distance! :) What I really need is every single zuiko, a
bunch of camera bodies and an employee to carry them all! :)
Jim Couch
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> 50/3.5 - 200g - 40mm long - 61mm diameter - 49mm filter
> So you can have your macro cake and save 90 grams carrying the 85/2
> and the 50/3.5 over just the 90/2. If you usually carry normal lens
> then then you also save another 230g, although in that case I would
> opt for the 50/2 which is a little heavier than the 3.5. Tom is right
> though. It is the intangibles. I know he loves the 90/2 and I
> probably would too if I had one. I really love my 50/2.
>
> Winsor
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|