In a nutshell, the 135 will get you working distance, the 38 will get more
magnification, but you'll be on top of your subject.
I'd recommend the 65-116 tube for field work over the bellows any day.
Bellows is really a table-top device - too bulky, and likely to fragile.
Not sure how I'd react if it rained on my bellows!
You can also use the standard tubes with the 135, but focusing range will be
quite limited. Hate to bring up other products other than OM, but you might
consider a Tamron SP or Vivitar Series 1 90 macro. A little easier to
transport and a lot cheaper (less expensive). Gary Reese' site has tests of
these lenses.
To go less expensively, Vivitar also made a standard grade 90 2.8 macro.
You can usually pick these up for less than $100. Or you can spend A LOT
more and get the Vivitar 90-180 4.5 Macro. Flat field - sky high price.
Brian P. Huber
Troy, OH
bphuber@xxxxxxxxxx
I'm an amatuer hobbiest interested in blowing things up: errr... making
closeups of bugs and flowers. I've progressed from screw-in closeup
diopters to generic ext. tubes to a dedicated OM 50/3.5 macro. I really
like the 50/3.5, BTW. Now I've got an opportunity to get either a 38/2.8
macro or possibly a 135/4.5 macro. Apparently either would require an
additional purchase of either Auto Bellows or Telescopic Auto Tube.(Am I
right that each would require tubes or bellows?)
Anybody out there with various macro experience care to comment? I'm open
to comments on lenses, tubes, bellows, film, lighting, tricks, etc. Has
anybody bought either the 38/2.8 or 135/4.5 or bellows or auto tubes and
regretted it?
Or has purchasing these items meant complete financial freedom, endless
party invitations and objects of sexual desire wantonly throwing themselves
into the purchasers path? <g>
< 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 >
|