I'm generally happy with the AF lenses I have for the 5D.
For close focus and macro, I don't yet have a plan/solution that I'm
happy with. The 28-300, do everything, lens I use most actually goes to
1:3 at the long end, which is sort of amazing, but not enough for many
shots I want to take.
So I've done a little testing. I wanted to see how much I could get away
without carrying extra lenses, since I have some achromatic, two element
close-up lenses. I also tried some true macros, both against each other
and as comparisons with what I could do with the other solution. I set
up the copy stand, put the back of a book with some sharp looking print
on it and started taking pictures.
The tests that should be of interest here are of the Zuiko 50/3.5,
Tamron SP 90/2.5 and Kiron 1002.8.
Ever since the Can*n full frame DSLRs came out, people have been saying
that they really show up any flaws in lenses, separating good from ok
from bad lenses.
Well, there is one lens that passes the 5D test with flying colors, the
Zuiko 50/3.5. So far, I've only really looked at 1:2 at f8. The Tamron
and Kiron are both very good, sharp and clear in the middle, showing the
little flaws in the print and the texture of the paper. At the edges,
they are still pretty darn good, but a little less detail is clear and
there is some vignetting, even at f8.
The 50/3.5 is just amazing. Clean, sharp, laser etched looking edges of
the ink, clear definition of individual paper fibers that have wicked
ink and were hinted at, but not clear on the other lenses and the detail
of the paper is clearer. Where the others show texture, it shows fiber
detail. At the edges? Maybe a tiny bit less sharp, but not much, still
very sharp and clear and no vignetting. In the center, you could say the
others are in the running, at the edges, they really drop back.
I always knew this was a good lens, having used it for copy work for
years, but the extra demands of the FF digital just make it stand out
more. WOW!
It's still not the ideal for everything. The lens to subject distance is
a problem off the copy stand and it's prone to pretty bad bokeh. And for
nature shots, the corners seldom matter anyway.
I haven't even tried it with 25 mm tube for 1:1, because the subject
distance will just be too small for what I'm looking for. Now that I've
seen what it does at 1:2, I may try 1:1 just for fun.
As for a pick between the Kiron and Tamron, their images are subtly
different, but essentially a dead heat for this test. The Tamron is
lighter and smaller, but requires a tube to go past 1:2. The Kiron is
bigger and heavier and goes directly to 1:1.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|