From: "Chip Stratton" <cstrat@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] 80mm f/4 vs. 90mm f/2 macro lenses - what goes into
the decision?
What is the advantage of the 80mm f/4 macro, which requires a bellows or
telescoping ext. tube, over the 90mm f/2?
It takes 49mm filters. "So what?" you might ask. Hint: the opening on
the Olympus slide copier is 49mm.
I suppose you might be able to cobble the slide copier together with
a step-down adaptor, but all the 55mm - 49mm step-downs I've seen
don't also step-down the outside diameter, which is what is important
here, so you'd have to screw a 1A or UV into the step-down so there'd
be something with a lip to fit inside the slide copier.
So the 80/4 was specifically designed and optimized for 1:1 flat copy
work, while the 90/2 is more of a general-purpose lens, and may not
be quite as good at 1:1. And it would be a pain to make it work with
the slide copier.
BTW: I just finished copying over 100 slides. The 80/4 does a
beautiful job! My only problems were some high-key and low-key
slides, which the TTL flash tried to make 18 0ray...
Another obvious advantage is size and weight, which might be
important if you needed to go below 1:2 and would be carrying a
bellows anyway.
I think you summed up the 90/2 advantages nicely, so I won't come to
its defense here.
... Yet I understand the 80mm
to be a costly lens - more so than the 90mm?
I don't think it's more than the 90. It may be more rare, but it also
has lower demand. I think Paul Farrar has the bottom for the 90 and
80 pegged at $550 and $245, respectively. I think I paid $300 for my
mint 80/4. They're out there, if you keep looking, but it is a
specialty lens, and so more rare than one that focuses from 1:2 to
infinity.
: Jan Steinman <mailto:jans@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068-1331 USA
: +1.503.635.3229
< 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 >
|