Hi,
A few months ago I bought the OM 65/200 F4 zoom lens which I like a lot. One
of the things I particularly like about it is the close focus capability at
200 mm. However, the lens is rather heavy (730 grams), so it's not all that
easy to take hand-held close up shots with great depth of field.
For that reason, I considered acquiring an OM 50 F3.5 (or F2) Macro lens -
or maybe even the OM 90 Macro lens, however, I was wondering about the
magnification factor of these macro lenses, as compared to this factor of
the OM 65/200. These macro lenses interest me, but if there's hardly any
difference in the magnification factor between these lenses and the zoom I
currently have, then I guess I can better save my money for a (completely)
different lens.
Apart from the lighter weight, the above mentioned macro lenses of course
have the added advantage of having greater aperture settings, but how about
the resolution etc., is that much better than on the zoom?
If anyone can tell me if these macro lenses are significantly better than
just using the close focus option, or if anyone just wants to share their
experience with these lenses, please let me know...
Cheers!
Olaf
< 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 >
|