>A few questions:
>What would I gain [or lose] by using a 90 or 100 macro instead of the 50.
>[I'd carry one or the other..]
Giles,
You'd gain some working distance, which might help with lighting. You
certainly won't make the plants less nervous, but if you are also trying for
the occasional "critter" that might have a good result too. Trade-off is
increased weight, but a NEW LENS!!!
My first OM lens was the 50 3.5 macro, got it in '75. Loved it until I met
the Vivitar 90 2.5 macro. My brother now has my 50 & I'm in the process of
acquiring a 135 macro to go with my 65-116 Auto tube.
>what tripod would you carry, if light weight, low angle,
>and quick-release were all important. How about if you factor price in.
Tripod-wise, I often carry two, a Leitz table-top with the long head and a
Velbon 550 Grounder. The Grounder lets me get down to 4" off ground, or use
it as a conventional tripod. Center column comes apart to allow closer than
normal setting to ground. What I really like about it is the weight, less
than 4 lbs. The small diameter of the collapsed tripod is also a nice
feature. I took off the standard head and put on a solid ball head. The
Velbon is a sleeper, price-wise. I got mine used for $35. I've not seen
anything close to its performance for the money.
When I'm going to get serious with longer lenses, I use either my Manfrotto
3401 with a ball head or a Benbo model 1. Both tripods allow independent
adjustment of legs for varying terrain and adjustment for close to ground
work.
>What are the top three [or 5?] accessories you'd throw in your pockets or
>daypack.
Sam Adams beer and a roast beef sandwich. Extra film and a cable release.
Small flash with diffuser.
Brian P. Huber
Troy, OH
bphuber@xxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|