Given the same subject size, the DOF will remain the same,
however the image will look completely different. With the 90/2,
you'll have much smoother backgrounds and greater subject
seperation from the background. However, the 50/3.5 is far more
useful for medium range macro--where you are trying to capture
the most accurate picture possible, not necessarily the most
"artistic".
The nice thing about the 50/3.5 is the small size and weight.
It's easy to throw in the bag and carry with you. Besides, it
functions as a terrific "normal" lens. I was provided with a
50/1.8 recently, which I use once in a while, but only for
unusual circumstances. The 50/3.5 is part of my "go kit". Also
in the "go kit" is the 100/2.8 and an extension tube. It get's
me down to around 1:4 which is about the highest magnification
that I find useful for that focal length. In the field, it's
pretty tough to keep everything sharp when under 1:4 unless you
use flash.
For years I strived to achieve those posterboard smooth
backgrounds (copying other people, obviously). Then I discovered
the 50/3.5 and it opened up whole new worlds that I hadn't seen
before.
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|