Mike,
I am beginning to come to the same conclusion. I did not really consider
how heavy the 90/2 is when I first started thinking about this. One idea
was to save weight and bulk over my standard setup which is the
telescoping tube w the 80/4 macro lens. The telescoping tube is more
bulky, but the weight difference is negligible. Not sure about weights on
the extension tubes, but I would estimate a full set (7+14+25) to be
about 250g which would an even lighter system. Your combo of the 85/2 and
a 14 tube (estimate at under 100g) is very light and compact. (I often
use the 35-70/3.5~4.5 + the 14 or 25 when I want to go real light.)
90/2 - 550g - 71mm long - 72mm diameter
- 55mm filter
85/2 - 260g - 46mm long - 60mm diameter
- 49mm filter
14 ex tube 100g (aprx)
TOTAL 360g
80/4 macro- 170g. - 33mm long - 60mm. diameter -
49mm filter
65-116 ex - 425g - (with tripod mount)
TOTAL 595g
A few other things:
I have not mentioned or considered that telescoping tube set makes
switching between panorama and portrait compositions much easier as you
can just rotate the tube body in the tripod adapter. In addition
extension tubes (particularly the telescoping) can be used with ANY lens,
giving one a lot of versatility in the field.
I probably should not really be complaining about weight and bulk, for
years all I had was a set of the Olympus bellows, which I often lugged
into the hills, considering that the weight for the bellows unit is 930g
w/o lenses even the 90/2 seems light and compact by comparison!
Mike wrote:
> I tried the extension tubes on the 85/2 and thought it worked pretty
> well especially the 14mm. So now I'm thinking i don't really need the
> 90/2. I haven't actually used the 90/2 but the size is similar to the
> 35-70/4 and heavier which is too big for me.
>
> Mike
< 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 >
|