Your choice should depend on what type of field macro work you need to do
and how much your wallet can stand the options.
Flowers and other non-movable objects will do fine with either a 90mm or
50mm Macro. The 90/2 is certainly better than many others, but I got GREAT
pictures with my Vivitar S1 Macro back years ago. So I'm sure that a Tamron
SP or Tokina ATX would do great too. (just about all the macro pictures in
my Nature/Flower gallery were taken with that S1 lens -
http://www.skipwilliams.com/gallery/nature-gallery1.htm)
If you need a LOT of working distance for flighty subjects like insects, you
should look into the 135/4.5. As I mentioned before, a big advantage is
that this lens will focus to infinity on the Auto-Tube. I haven't tried a
135/2.8, 180/2.8, 200/4, or even the 300/4.5 on the Auto-Tube, but that
setup would certainly work for these sort of subjects too. However, the
135/4.5 will produce better closeup images as it's specifically corrected
for close-ups; whereas the other lenses are not.
I wish that Olympus had made a long focus Macro like Nikon's 200/4, or
Canon's 180/3.5, or Sigma's 180/3.5 Macro.
See: http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/eflenses/ef180.html
See:
http://www.nikonusa.com/usa_product/product.jsp?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1468NAS
See: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/180_ex.htm
Given enough stamina in the SLR market, Olympus probably would have come out
with such a lens, but history was not to allow that to happen.
Skip
****** I M P O R T A N T R E P L Y I N F O ************
Please adddress ALL offlist messages to skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
This hotmail.com email address is ONLY used for this mailing list
subscription and I will probably not notice any private messages addressed
here.
***********************************************************
From: Jim Couch <JamesBCouch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 85 f2 vs Zuiko 90 f2 Macro
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:46:43 -0700
Boy do I know what you mean what you mean by empty wallet and full cabinet!
:)
I am thinking in terms of the 135/telescoping tube combo as well. I am
trying to
come up with the 'ultimate' combo for field macro work. (Yea I know -
RIGHT!)
One thing that is attractive about the 90 f2 is that I still have good
working
distance and could get by w/o extension tubes in most cases. On the other
hand,
if I AM going to carry the telescoping extension tube than the 135 might
make
some sense. Or maybe I will go back to the good old days of the 35-70
f3.5~4.5
with a single extension tube, took some fine flower portraits with that
combo.
Ah choices, choices, choices!
Jim Couch
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
< 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 >
|