On Mon, Jan 30, 2012, at 02:59 PM, Moose wrote:
> First, let me say that this is not a macro comparison.
Sure it is. Zuikos 50/3.5 and 90/2, Nikk*r 55/2.8 -- all considered by
earthlings to be macro lenses.
> absent clear
> referents, it looks to me as though the full subject
> width is somewhere between 7 and 14 inches,a repro ratio of 1:10 to 1:5.
> Based on the apparent slight softness of the
> 90/2 and my experience with on, maybe closer to 1:5.
I'd guess that's about right. I was just interested in taking a similar
photo with all three lenses. I often check the ratio, but not this
time. It's rare for me to go 1:4 or tighter.
> Marketing labeling aside, that is to me close-focus, not macro.
To me too.
> Who knows
> what the term really means? Oly labeled
> everything from the 90/2. which gets soft by 1:4, to the 20mm lenses
> designed to go to 12:1 (12x) as Macro. The called
> their microscope photography equipment Micro. Nikon called their lenses
> that go down to 1:2 ad 1:2 Micro.
I don't what it means. N*kon calls theirs "macros" which I interpret to
mean "focuses in the wrong direction."
> > I am pleased with the lowly Z 50/3.5. I believe it acquits itself more
> > than adequately against the 55/2.8 macro. I was surprised that its
> > excellent contrast, if anything, may beat the Nikk*r. This is a MC
> > sample.
>
> It puzzles me that people so often refer the the 50/3.5 as somehow lowly,
> like it was designed as a cheap alternative to
> something else. I don't believe that was the case at all. As part of
> Oly's first round of lenses for OM, I think it was
> designed with little compromise as a relatively expensive lens.
I hope you don't expect me to speak on behalf of "people." Everyone is
on his own. In my case I used the word "lowly" because I meant it is
common. It is beyond a doubt a cheap alternative to many lenses, but
that is not what it means to me. I had a 50/3.5, traded it off, then
missed it and bought another, if that tells you what I think of it. I
do see why you might have interpreted it as you did though.
<snip stuff on the 50/2>
> I believe the 50/3.5 is a really excellent lens for its designed purpose.
> There is a difference, to my mind, between a
> lens that will focus very close and a true macro lens. The true macro is
> designed for flat field, even resolution &
> contrast across the whole field and even illumination across the whole
> field. The 50/3.5 has those qualities in spades.
> It's really quite impressive at 1:2, clearly superior to the contemporary
> Tamron 90/2.5 and Kiron 105/2.8 and on a par
> with the much later design Tamron 90/2.8 AF.
I feel that I quantified some of what you said here for myself. I'm
quite happy I did it for that reason and it was also very pleasant to
do.
> Over the course of a few years, ending maybe 8-10 years ago, I helped a
> friend make a few hundred slides for his
> university lectures. These were slides of printed images, mostly from art
> and archaeology books. I made a copy stand
> from an enlarger, used photo floods at 45 deg. to the copy and a piece of
> glass to hold the copy flat. With a wide
> range of subject sizes and limited copy stand height travel, after some
> experimentation, I used the Zuiko 50/3.5 and
> Tamron 90/2.5 for all the work. As we never got down to 1:1, I saw no
> practical difference in performance between the
> two lenses. (BTW, I did some similar work with a better copy stand, Nikon
> Ftn and 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor many years ago -
> before the Zuiko existed. It was excellent too.)
I copied many family photos with the Nikk*r 55/2.8 back in the day when
the lens was new. Used Panatomic X, possibly in Microdol. Bracketed
every photo and found that one of the exposures in every case, printed
on a #1 grade paper, produced a nearly perfect, grainless copy. My
wife's grandmother was a "picture bride" in Hawaii in the early part of
the last century and I was able to make a good copy of that photo and
even enlarge it. It's still hanging on our wall.
One of the things I did not mention is that the focusing mechanism has
gotten stiff on the 55/2.8. I had hoped to use it more but I suspect
the 50/3.5 will cover those chores.
> So what's my point? Simply that this was not a test of macro lens
> characteristics. The magnification is not really
> macro, subject is not flat, vignetting wouldn't be noticeable and edge
> sharpness isn't important. In fact, a lens with
> slightly convex focal field might outperform one with a flat field!
That is certainly true. Did I give you the impression I was attempting
anything like a test of "macro lens characteristics"? I have these
lenses, see, and I just wanted to look at how they would do taking a
picture of the same flower. It's an embarrassment of riches, frankly.
> Lens design is always a series of compromises. To make a lens really good
> for 1:2, flat field macro, compromises must be
> made in other characteristics. I wonder how a good general purpose lens,
> like a late 50/1.4, might have fared in this
> test? Probably depends on how big the subject actually is. I would also
> expect the 135/4.5 to perform very well at this
> distance and magnification.
That is something I do mean to try before too long. I have also used the
85/2 with 7mm tube to get closer than the naked lens will focus. The
size of the 85 is handy in many circumstances. I don't always like the
blur when I use it that way though. That is what I would test. I have
an old pre-AI Nikk*r 85/1.8 which is fun to compare with the Zuiko and
now it will be so much easier to do that. Its rear element is pretty
flat though. It's prone to flare even shooting film.
> > ... For handling, the aperture ring placement of the Zuiko makes it much
> > easier to use on the 5D. And it is
> > small. Despite its lack of speed I have no problem focusing it.
> > Marvelous lens.
>
> Indeed, but not for everything. It has the 50mm bokeh disease when
> focused close with a moderate to far away background
> even worse than the standard 50s. For that reason and the short working
> distance, I don't like it for outdoor work.
I'm less bothered by the bad bokeh than a short focus distance.
> > What to think about the 90? I think, for one thing, the test is not the
> > last word on the 90. Where the point of sharpest focus should be, I
> > find the 90 to be a trifle softer than the other two lenses. Look, for
> > example, at the veins at the top of the petal that is the most vertical,
> > just to the right of the bole of the flower:
>
> Just get an old Tammy 90/2.5, 49 or 55mm thread model. Far better close
> up, almost as fast, just as good for general
> purpose and a great 180/5 macro with matched 2x converter. No prestige,
> but if results are what matters ... I sold my
> 90/2 and kept the Tammy. (And I hardly ever sell anything!)
I will not do that. As you said, lens design is a series of
compromises. The Z90 has its compensations even if you can't skin a
raccoon with it. A Tamron 90/2.8 in an EF mount, however, is on my
short list if Canaan FF ever starts to grow on me. :)
Joel W.
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|