The 50/3.5 is a great lens. Whether it is the 'right' lens depends on
what you plan to use it for.
The nice, even resolution and flat field make it a great copy lens. The
50mm FL makes it suitable for most work down to it's 1:2 repro limit
without tubes. Beyond 1:2, it gets so close to the subject that lighting
can become an issue. On a copy stand, I use a 50/3.5 for larger items
and a Tamron 90/2.5 for smaller items. The 90mm gives a much more
convienient working distance for smaller stuff, but its coverage is
limited by the height of my copy stand.
For bugs, flowers, etc. outdors, I don't like the 50/3.5. The very short
working distance scares bugs, makes tripod setup difficult and often
messes up lighting. A longer focal length is much better here. The Kiron
105/2.8 is a very nice lens that focuses directly to 1:1. The realtively
high speed, all metal construction and 1:1 helicals make it sorta heavy.
The Tamron 90mm/2.5s with the Tamron 2x flat field multiplier become
180/5.0 with great working distance and focus down to 1:1, but their
effective speed gets pretty slow at high repro ratios. The Zuiko 90/2
sounds nice, but costs more than I've been willing to pay for this use
and seems way too big and heavy for other uses when I have the 85/2 and
100/2.8.
Moose
Wayne Culberson wrote:
Looks like you got it for a good price, too. I would be interested in how it
compares to the panagor for results. I've been biting the bullet lately, and
picking up a few prime Zuikos, and am interested in getting a 50/3.5.
< 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 >
|