Does anyone on the list have experience using the 50/3.5 Zuiko macro vs.
using an ordinary 50/1.8 Zuiko with extension tubes, a Vivitar 2x macro
extender, or closeup lenses? I know there is supposed to be significant
difference in field flatness and optical quality, but I've never seen
side-by-side pictures to show how *much* difference.
Also could anyone comment on the practical differences between using a 50mm
macro and the 90mm macro, beyond the obvious one of subject distance? The
90 Zuiko macro is a bit out of my price range, but there might be non-Zuiko
substitutes. Again, I'm looking for direct comparisons of optical quality.
We're talking about real macro photography from just beyond the close-focus
distance of a regular 50mm zuiko up to about 1:1. Good quality film and
enlargements up to 8x10.
It seems to me that a real macro lens is going to be better than any
stopgap solution like closeup lenses or extension tubes on a
50/1.8--although for non-flat subjects, I wonder at what ratio the loss of
optical quality of the 50/1.8 vs. the 50/3.5 macro would become noticeable.
Thanks,
--Peter Klein
Seattle, WA
< 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 >
|