Moose wrote:
>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 agree on the 50/3.5 - I've been using it extensively on the 5D and it
works great for close-ups when stopped down. As good across the frame as
any. I love using the Tamon 90/2.5 too though my copy is with the OM
adaptall mount so requires this + the OM to EOS mount which makes it all
a bit awkward (and even more awkward when having to attach the tube).
I've found it's a very contrasty lens with great colour and am seriously
thinking of getting the new AF version (90/2.8) which goes 1:1. There
are a number of choices from other vendors around that range though, so
still deciding...
How are you finding exposure with these lenses? I find it's quite
erratic and am always having to tweak +/- whenever I change aperture.
Paul
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|