Rich:
i have both lenses and find myself going for the 135/4.5 most often. there
will be several here that will tell you to get the 90/2. it is a good
choice for general macro, but the working dist. on the 135/4.5 always amazes
me. i usually find myself taking a half a step BACK when using this lens.
i think the real decision will depend on your subject matter. general
flowers, bugs, etc is what the 135/4.5 is made for, but it is just a bit shy
of .5x with Auto Tube. i reallt like the AT, but have found myself wanting
a bellows for the integral focusing rail/stage and for the ability to
reverse lenses. the 80/4 does see some use - especially with the f=170mm
lens attached. the great close-ups of flowers it produces can be stunning!
i personally like the 135/4.5, but it is a bit slow for shooting around with
film slower than ISO 400. however, i don't think you'll be disapponted with
the lens. it will easily replace the need for your 50/3.5, unless you use
that lens for general photography. Also, with the 80/4, you will be quite
close to the subjects - especially at 1:1!
Bob
<snip>
I am currently considering the purchase of a macro lens to use with the auto
extension tube, focusing rail and stage, and tripod or with the auto
bellows. I seem to be leaning towards the 135mm f4.5. The distance from
lens to subject is an import factor for me due to medical problems
(arthritic knees and ankles) . Any advice on the advantages and/or
disadvantages of, or a comparison of the 135mm f4.5 and the 80mm f4 would be
greatly appreciated. What would be the price ranges for these lenses? Does
anyone know of one for sale? I currently have a 50mm f3.5 macro and have
been quite pleased with it's results. What other options should I consider?
Thanks in advance for your input.
Rich.
< 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 >
|