>Shawn Wright wrote:
>>
>> 'm planning on getting a 50mm macro lens for light weight backpacking,
>> however I'm a bit confused as to what's on offer
>>
>> Can somebody explain the difference between the the f2 and f3.5 versions.
>> (and don't say f1.5!)
>>
>> Is one better quality than the other?
>Sorry, I don't know.
>
>> Is there a difference on image magnification?
>Practically none. Both are spec'ed with a minimum field size
>of 48x72mm (1.9x2.8in).
>
>> What the closest focus?
>50mm F2: 0.24m, 50mm F3.5: 0.23m. The difference must be due to
>the longer construction of the f2 version.
>
>>
>> Any personal experiences greatly received.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Regards,
>>
>> Shaun Edwards
>> Shawn & Janis Wright
>> swright@xxxxxxxxx
>> http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
>> (Olympus List Archives)
>>
>
>If weight is important I'd take the f3.5, as it only weighs
>200g. The f2 weighs 320g.
>
>I have had a f3.5 for many years and I am very pleased with it.
>It is very sharp and has low flare.
>
>Regards
>Lars
>--
My impression of the way Oly went in developing the OM system is that they
changed goals at one point or maybe it was part of their original plan. At
first it was to build a more compact, but easy to use SLR with lenses that
matched the compactness of the camera and were the equal or better of the
best that was available at the time. The 50/3.5 was part of that
development. When the most of the system was deployed they decided to do
some Wow! lenses that were better than anybody elses. They frequently did
this by building specific lenses with great quality and a larger aperture
than anyone elses. The 50/2 was part of that. The 50/3.5 is very compact,
light weight, takes 49mm filters and is of very high quality.
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|