> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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.
Having had both, I must say I way prefer the f2 macro. Without having performed
specific tests, it juts seems more "snappy," and I like the nearly two stops of
extra light.
But I do think it is important to make the best of what you have, and if I
hadn't had both of them, I'd be saying how happy I was with the 3.5. :-)
----------------
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the
grand fallacy. -- Gerald Weinberg
:::: Jan Steinman, EcoReality Co-op ::::
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|