Olaf;
The 50 and 90 both go to 1:2 (that's 1/2 life size on the slide). I'm
pretty sure the macro on the 65-200 goes to 1:4 (1/4 life size). So you
get twice the magnification with the 50 or 90. But remember, the
working distance with the 200 is 2.8 feet, while the 50 is 9 inches.
IOW, if you're chasing a butterfly or something, being able to stay
almost 1 meter away might be pretty helpful!
George
Olaf Greve wrote:
>
> 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 >
< 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 >
|