Is there any informed comment / experience out there in OM list land about
combining a 90 / f2 with an E3 and what can be achieved image wise ?
Does anyone have any images for view taken with a 90 / f2 and an E3 ?
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2, zoom vs. prime and stuff [was Dude,who cares about
.56ms?]
> Wow, that's really long... instead of trimming your message I provide my
> views here:
>
> Concerning the price and performance - It is well known that for every
> stop
> of increase of aperture the price double, for original camera manufacturer
> lens the price increase another 30-100%, that's why OM 90/2 is so
> expensive.
> Also, it was the largest aperture 90-100mm macro in the world.
>
> I won't question your shooting style, everyone has their own. I mainly
> used
> the DZ 11-22 during a trip to Europe in 2004, it was a very hurry one
> say...
> 14 days for 8 countries :-) but I still changing lenses a lot. For the
> local
> shots, I usually shoot very slowly, there are penty of time to change
> lens.
> I'm not a pro, I don't need to make sure I can capture every important
> scenes. Sometimes I just find the subject based on what lens I have
> mounted
> on the camera instead of finding the lens that fit the subject, you will
> see
> things differently that way. I know you do street snap of people with long
> lens/zoom but I usually just do it with a 24/2 prefocused.
>
> For the feeling of 50mm macro better for handhold, to me weight is
> certainly
> an issue. I know people say camera movement in macro will be the same if
> image magnification is the same but I just found I get more sharp shots
> with
> short macro lens may be my next longer macros are just too heavy (90/2 and
> 135/4.5 with autotube).
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> On 4/10/2010 6:47 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Moose"<olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I was just sooo disappointed in the 90/2 that I had for close-up. Not
>>>> awful, just so-so when I was expecting a lot.
>>> You really expecting a lot from it, to me the close-up quality is good,
>>> at least average for a 90mm macro. Here is a ~1:3 (?) shot at F2.8, not
>>> bad to my eyes.
>>>
>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5157.JPG (ISO 800, sharpness=1, NR=0)
>>>
>>
>> That's very nice. I don't think mine was that sharp close-up. It's been
>> a few years now, so it's hard to be sure. I don't care enough to go back
>> looking for old images.
>>
>> I never carefully tested it against my other macro lenses. I had already
>> sold it by the time I bought the Tamron 90/2.8 AF in Canon mount. I do
>> remember doing a lot of close-up/macro work in nature at the time and
>> finding that it just didn't measure up to the Tamron 90/2.5 or Kiron
>> 105/2.8 on the same sort of subjects. Maybe in reality, it wasn't much
>> worse, maybe even no worse (nah), but I paid a lot more money for this
>> legendary lens, so it should be better, no?
>>
>> In careful 1:2 and 1:1 tests on a copy stand, the new Tamron on 5D
>> clearly was better than anything I had but the 50/3.5 @ 1:2, where it
>> was a tie, to my eye, although the two IQs were a little different from
>> each other. I didn't have the 80/4 at that time, but it's really a
>> different sort of lens, not suited to full range use from infinity to
>> 1:2.
>>
>>> Its excellent corner to corner performance for distance object is
>>> difficult to find among the OM Zuikos I have, great for demanding
>>> landscape.
>>>
>>
>> As you can see, I didn't limit myself to Zuikos. :-) The truth is that
>> I have mostly used zooms for landscapes since I got the 35-70/3.6 in the
>> '70s, so over 30 years. I did for part of the time with the 35-70 have a
>> Vivitar 28mm prime, but used it sparingly. I believe all my 90-105 mm
>> macros to be excellent at infinity, but have done no careful testing.
>> The only time I think views like you have from high up in HK would be
>> good is for non-close-up lens comparisons. I would have to go to
>> considerable trouble to find such great lens test subjects where I live.
>>
>>>> My lens for family events for many years was the 35-70/3.6. I used it
>>>> on
>>>> a 2n, with OTF flash indoors or under trees, and was very happy.
>>> The zoom is more versatile but you know fix lenses just feel much better
>>> and peoples are more respected to the image produce from fix lenses :-)
>>>
>>
>> We each need to know and work within our own limitations. Just as the
>> camera left at home, no matter how wonderful, isn't as good as the one
>> carried, the lens left in the bag isn't as good as the one on the
>> camera. Very occasionally, I set out to photograph with a bag of prime
>> lenses and a good tripod, work slowly and choose the lens for the shot.
>>
>> My personal experience is that doing that gets in the way of my
>> photography. I get too involved in the equipment and don't find as
>> appealing, to me, subjects and compositions. The majority of my images
>> happen away from home while walking in nature, usually with one or more
>> other people. But to tell the truth, even when by myself, I tend to see
>> the shot, take it fairly quickly, and move on.
>>
>> This might be a problem if I were trying to make a living as a pro
>> nature/landscape photographer. As an amateur, shooting mostly to please
>> myself and to some extent those I know personally, it works. Because I
>> notice and want to photograph everything from the tiny to the very wide
>> to the very distant, often all within a few moments, I find zooms to be
>> much more transparent to me. That is, they don't get in the way, while
>> primes do.
>>
>> It may be a little like viewfinders. Obviously, lots of folks here find
>> a great deal of difference in (D)SLR viewfinders. If I hold the "tunnel
>> vision, dim, mirror prism" 300D in one hand and an OM-1 in the other, I
>> can see that there is a huge difference in the view through them. but
>> when I used the 300D in the field, I simply didn't notice. I looked
>> through the finder and saw the subject. It was transparent to me, as I
>> didn't notice it getting in the way. Primes aren't transparent to me.
>>
>> I know it makes me less than perfect ;-) , but I just don't much like
>> changing lenses. Even with just 17-35, 28-300 and 90mm macro, I
>> sometimes make do with 28 mm, when wider might be better, or use the
>> nice close-up capability of the 28-300 at the long end, rather than
>> switch to the true macro lens. When the wind is blowing, the spray is
>> flying, and/or there is a lot more to see just down the trail, I just
>> want to capture my image and move on.
>>
>> I suppose I'm odd. I'll stand in cold, damp wind, freezing while I wait
>> for the perfect wave, for the bird to turn its head just right, for a
>> nice bird to fly across the sunset, and so on, but resent having to
>> shield the camera in my coat and unzip a bag to change lenses. Oh well.
>> ;-)
>>
>> I am also finding myself carrying a small camera, recently the G11, on
>> my belt and using it for macro in many cases, rather than the 90/2.8 on
>> 5D. Although pixel peeping IQ even at ISO 80 isn't up to the 5D, the
>> greater DOF makes for better overall IQ for many flowers and similar
>> subjects at reasonable viewing sizes.
>>
>> Although I pixel peep to compare sensor systems and lenses, which makes
>> sense to me, I also take into consideration whether they would be
>> practical in my use. The big, pro 1D series and Nikon equivalents or MF
>> equipment may be the best there is, but I know I simply wouldn't be
>> carrying them, so what good would they be for me?
>>
>> In practice, I and others mostly see my images on an 11.3x18.5" computer
>> screen or an 8.5x11 print. Sure, I have the capability and the paper to
>> print up to 13x19, but I almost never do. And even at 13x19, at normal
>> viewing distances, the cameras and lenses I have are fully up to the job.
>>
>> Many of the images from my less than perfect zooms just knock me out at
>> full computer screen size. I so much wish my distant friends could see
>> them that way instead as the smaller sizes that are practical on the web.
>>
>> As long as Carol praises my images here at home and I get some positive
>> feedback her and from other distant friends on my web images, I'm doing
>> well.
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> The angle of view is like 100mm on FF, but the working distance is
>>>> still
>>>> short. I really like the working distance of the Tamron 90/2.5 with 2x
>>>> converter. 180m is great and f5 stopped down a bit is fine for sunny
>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> More working distance is better but shorter lens is easier for handhold.
>>>
>>
>> Is that really true? If the image size on screen or on paper is the
>> same, aren't DOF and the effects of camera movement the same either way?
>> I know we have the 1/focal length rule of thumb for shutter speed, but
>> that's because image from the wider lens won't be enlarged to the same
>> displayed subject size.
>>
>> If I take a picture of a ruler with 50 mm and with 180 mm and/or with
>> 4/3 and FF and print them all so the ruler is the same size in the
>> print, I think movement blur from my imperfection as a tripod is just
>> the same in all of the prints.
>>
>> Or if you simply mean a smaller. lighter lens is easier to hold steady,
>> I can see that. In practice, I find the mostly plastic, and therefore
>> light, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro balances nicely on the 5D for me. I don't
>> think a smaller, lighter lens would make any practical difference, but
>> who knows?
>>
>> Moose
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 5026 (20100413) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5029 (20100414) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
