It sounds like you are on the right track John. I have both the 80 and the 135.
For field use the extra working distance of the 135 is VERY nice.
As to the variable extension tube vs the bellows, for field use it is pretty
much no contest, in favor of the extension tube:
Bellows: Bulky, heavy, fragile, not hand holdable, no
auto aperature (except with a finiky, fragile, hard to replace dual cable
release), slow to work with.
Variable extension tube: Compact, light, hand holdable (results will be better
w/tripod though) quick and easy to handle.
Once you use the 65-116 tube in the hills, I doubt you will carry a bellows unit
with you again. The combination of the 135 with the 65-116 tube is pure joy for
nature macro work.
Jim Couch
John Duggan wrote:
> Hi all,
> After recent comments regarding the Olympus 80mm Macro and 135 Macro
> , Which would be the listmembers choice. I have a 50mm f3.5 and Tamron 90mm
> f2.5 sp. As I am thinking more of natural history type shots my gut feeling
> is that the greater "stand off" distance of the 135mm would be useful.
> I already own the variable extension tube....How does this compare in
> the field to bellows?
> I would be very interested to have members opinions.
> Regards, John Duggan, Wales UK.
< 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 >
|