Fast Macros
These are not only for macro, but normal photography as well. So f2 is good.
And it gives more light when macro focussing. You are right, small apertures
for macro. But I have 50mm f3.5 and Tamron 90mm f2.5. Both 49mm filters,
same as all my other lenses less than 300mm. Both are great lenses. f2
lenses are bigger and heavier.
500mm f8
I haven't got one, but am willing to beg. I've heard it's a good mirror.
Foxy
-----Original Message-----
>3 questions: Smoke & Mirrors & Variable Focusing
>
>1) Smoke: I'm thinking about picking up my first Zuiko macro lens. (I've
>fiddled around with extension rings and the 40cm closeup lens long
>enough.) I've been thinking about the 50 f3,5; the 50 f2; and the 90.
>Having recently been disappointed by the shallow depth of field I get
>with *just the closeup filter*, I'm beginning to wonder why I should even
>consider the 50f2 or the 90 -- when would I ever use the speed these two
>lenses offer, if I never plan to use them in place of standard lenses of
>the same length? In general, what's the point of fast macro glass (aside
>from the "wow" factor)? Is there a good reason for it, or is fast macro
>glass just "blowing smoke"? Do any of you really use your superfast f/2
>macros wide open when shooting macro? Or do you just mount your fast
>macros on your camera to impress the rest of us, and make the excuse that
>you can now use your macro as your normal lens, too?
>
>2) Mirrors: Have we discussed the Zuiko 500 mm f/8 recently? (Haven't
>checked the archives yet). What's your take on this lens? Given the
>price, what are decent non-Zuiko alternatives for catadioptrics? I
>recently found a T-mount 500f8 Celestron in a pawn shop for $200 US.
>Celestron usually makes good stuff. Decent? Other alternatives? Do any of
>you own mirror lenses for your OMs? Are ya happy?
< 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 >
|