Warren advised:
>In terms of sharpness the 90/2.8 was just a tad below the Series 1 but did
go
>1:1 without the special dedicated adapter of the Series 1.
Interesting info. Thanks.
ms
>------------------------------
Hans wrote:
>The 38mm macro and 20mm macro are lenses for specialists. At 65mm extension
>the lens to subject distance with the 38mm lens is only about 5cm, which may
>scare most animals. Its high magnification make it only suitable for the
>smallest subjects (1.5cm or smaller). Its shallow depth of field make it
>almost impossible to use it hand-held; to give you any chance of success
>you'll have to add a flash, but because of the short working distance this
>can only be a specialized macro flash like the T28 Twin.
Hmmm. I didn't know that about the special flash. That would mean that
getting the 38/2.8 would entail not only getting either tele. auto tube or
bellows, but also a specialty flash. And even then one would have only
something of very limited usefulness. From your other comments and those of
others, I'm becoming more and more convinced that the 50/3.5 that I already
have may well be the best macro for me and the stuff I'm interested in.
thanks,
ms
------------------------------------------
Walt contributed:
>Realistically, though, except for the greater working distance and
>different perspective of the 135, the 50/3.5 macro will do pretty much the
>same things. It's my everyday 50mm lens instead of the 1.4, except when I
>feel the need for speed.
I find myself doing the same thing. I've got (3) 50's, (1.8,1.4 and 3.5mac)
and find myself using the 50/3.5 far more than the others.
ms
>------------------------------
Tom Scales wisely added:
>There are just too many choices.
I completely agree. I actually worry that I'll wind up with more gear than
I can make good use of. As it is right now I've got too many choices, just
with existing equip.
ms
----------------------------------
Brian P. Huber suggested:
>For a nice portable reflector, take a look at the Photoflex reflectors.
Sorry Brian, but I will NEVER again buy anything whatsoever from Photoflex.
I could go into rant mode about how they attempted to defraud me by
overcharging for shipping one of their Xtreme camera waistcases, (sold
through 'Ecamerabags' but billed through the parent co.- Photoflex). I
could talk about the 3 phone calls, various emails and really snotty sales
gal named Tara. (who knew nothing whatsoever about the product) But suffice
it to say that I'll not ever be doing buisness with Photoflex or any of
it's subsidiaries again. The waist case I got is really nothing special,
and the hassles I had trying to get it billed correctly were just far more
aggravation than one needs.
I'm glad to hear that you like the reflectors, but my advice to anybody
considering one of their camera bags is to buy Tamrac and get better
quality with far less aggravation.
ms
>------------------------------
Bill B. wrote:
>A tripod for nature macro shoots must be stable
>and capable of support near ground level (turning the center column upside
down is a pain in
>the neck).
Man, you got that right. I've tried that repeatedly with both a Bogen 3001
and a Tiltall 'pro' and really I can't see how people even think it's an
acceptable solution. My current solution is to also have a small Ultrapod
II and a couple of bean bags with me so that I can get low without having
to be contorted or upside down, etc.
Thanks again to all,
Mike Swaim
***********
< 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 >
|