---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: William Clark <wclark@xxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 09:28:17 -0500
>So after playing with the 65-116 and "regular" lenses for a
>while, I am now looking at getting a real macro lens. The
>question is, which one? Most seem to use the 50 3.5, but the
>80 f4 looks good (one that goes on BOTH the bellows and the
>65-116). Anyone have experience with either of these. What
>is the close-focus distance of the 50 5.3?
>
>Thanks!!!
>
>-Bill
>
I?ve got all this macro stuff -- 65-116 auto extension tube, auto
bellows, 50/3.5, 80/4 and 135/4.5. The 50/3.5 is my normal lens
most of the time, especially when traveling light (and when
there's light), because of its close-up ability and otherwise good
performance. I don?t recall, though, ever using it on either the
auto extension tube or the bellows. The 80/4 is a super lens, but
it is strictly a macro lens, great for 1:1 shots. My favorite is
the 135/4.5. It gives greater macro working range, goes up to
1:3, AND it will focus at infinity with the auto tube, making it
extremely versatile. That would be my first choice for use with
the 65-116. Check my TOPE macro entry for an example of a shot
with the 135 on the tube.
Walt Wayman
< 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 >
|