Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] So here's the deal...

Subject: Re: [OM] So here's the deal...
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 18:06:16 -0800
On 12/15/2010 5:31 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> But the reason for an f/2 macro lens is not for you to shoot at f/2.  It's so 
> you can still focus at an effective f/3 instead of f/5.3 when you're at half 
> life-size.  That said, I only have the f/3.5 version. f/2 is too expensive.  
> :-)

I've never had a problem focusing with the 50/3.5. Ergo no need for the expense 
of the f2.

One of my first posts on this list was about sharpness comparison of 
performance of some lenses based on Gary's tests. 
It resulted in off list correspondence with Gary. My conclusion was that used 
at optimum apertures, the difference 
between 50/3.5 and 50/2 was likely insignificant.

My own tests show the 50/3.5 to be just excellent down to 1:2 and still very 
good at 1:1. I've used the 50/3.5 and 
Tamron 90/2.5 extensively for flat copy work and they are both first rate. With 
my relatively short copy stand, I use 
both, depending on subject size, often swapping back and forth during a 
session. With the 80/4 Auto now at hand, 
optimized for 1:2 to 2:1, I just don't feel the need for another 50 mm macro 
lens.

I know many people use their macro lens for general shooting, believing or 
knowing that it outperforms their standard 50 
mm lens even at longer focal distances. When I was quite young, I used to use 
dad's Micro-Nikkor that way, based, I'm 
afraid, on hearsay, not knowledge. In any case, if I need something faster for 
non close-up work, the >1.1 million 
50/1.4 works excellently.

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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz