Geilfuss Charles wrote:
> Greetings All,
>
> I was thumbing through a back-issue of Sky & Telescope when
> an ad caught my eye. It was from a maker of specialty CCD cameras for
> astrophotography. That sure looks like an OM Zuiko 50/3.5 macro sitting
> on their camera. I went to their website and sure enough that's what it
> is. Seen here:
>
> http://www.fli-cam.com/images/Product%20Images/ProLine%20and%20CFW-2-7.jpg
>
> Not sure why it's there but I bet it takes great photos.
>
It seems an odd choice to me. In theory, a macro is optimized for
close-up, while a normal lens is optimized for distance.
Gary's tests are all at 1:40. In them, the late 50/1.4 lenses reach A
ratings at f.2.8, while the 50/3.5s are two stops slower for the same
performance. I don't know what testing at infinity would do, but in
theory, it should tip towards the 50/1.4.
Since the name of the game in wide field sky photography is light
gathering ability, I would think the 50/1.4 a better choice. Two stops
means 1/4 the exposure time. If it turns out to be three stops at
infinity, that's 1/8 the needed exposure time
The astrophoto experts here may see some flaw in my thinking.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
