On 1/21/2013 8:14 AM, danmitchell@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> ... That's exactly what I found -- I still have the option of using older
> "real" macro lenses if I want to make a special effort, but the 12-50
> goes close enough to let me take photos of small-ish things if I want
> to, while still having a versatile lens for normal use.
The Oly OM non-bellows mount Macro lenses, 50/3.5, 50/2 and 90/2 all went to
1:2 (0.5x), not 1:1. The 90/2 really
started to go downhill at about 1:4. The 50/3.5, while still good at 1:1, is
noticeably better at 1:2
The 12-50 in Macro mode is a fixed 43 mm. In real repro ratio terms, it is
1:2.8 (0.36x). Adjusted for sensor size, such
that the whole image is displayed at the same size for both formats, that is,
4/3 is magnified twice as much as FF. The
effective repro ratio is then 1:1.38 (0.72x).
The 12-50 in Macro mode is effectively more of a macro lens that the
traditional OM Macros. Of course, it is actually 43
mm, so the working distance is shorter.
MikeG and I did an informal, but fairly careful, test of 12-50 vs. 50/2 OM
Macro lens on one of his orchids. My
conclusion is that they are essentially equal in IQ, at least in the central
area. The subject didn't lend itself to
edge evaluation.
Macro Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|