Hi Shaun:
The 1998 OM List Archives will turn up lots on the two 50mm macros that I and
others have said.
> I'm planning on getting a 50mm macro lens for light weight backpacking,
> however I'm a bit confused as to what's on offer
You are better off with the f/3.5 for backpacking / field work. Especially if
your other lenses are 49 mm filter threads. Carry an extra set of filters is
a killer.
> Can somebody explain the difference between the the f2 and f3.5 versions.
> Is one better quality than the other?
The f/2.0 is the fastest 50mm true macro ever. Other makers, e.g., Alpa's
Kern Macro Switar and Leica's Dual Range Summicron, have simply offered
extended helicals to otherwise infinity optimized lens designs. The f/3.5 is
pretty stand fare amount macro designs. In a nutshell, the 3.5 gets you a
poor quality f/22 (vs. f/16 max in the f/2), the f/3.5 wide open thr. f/5.6
isn't particularily sharp, whereas the f/2.0 is excellent beginning at f/4.
> Is there a difference on image magnification?
> What the closest focus?
Nope. Both are a pain to use closer than their 1:2 helical limit, since you
have to keep the lens fully extended and interchange extension tubes to get
the right subject magnification. Much better to go with the better optimized
80mm f/4.0 and the 38mm f/2.8 on the Telescoping Auto Extension Tubes as 1:1
high mag lenses.
All that said, I wish I once again had the f/3.5 There are situations for the
f/2 and situations for the f/3.5 But shooting with the f/2 gives you the
confidence that technically you are coaxing out the highest possible quality
image. Psychologically it can be a motivator towards excelling in your
technique.
BTW, the $300 50mm f/2 I mentioned here two weeks ago never did sell. If
anyone is interested, catch me off the list.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|