I don't think a flat field lens will render "flat" images. They are two
different things, flat field means flat field curvature, that means the
focusing point remain the same on the whole frame. Some lenses has higher
filed curvature that lead to the edges out of focus which need stopping down
the aperture to improve the sharpness.
The problem especially true for non macro lens, when they get into the close
focusing distance, the field of curvature increases, you have to stop down a
lot to make the whole frame has acceptable sharpness.
The 80/4 has very high resolution, much better than the 90/2, which only
perform so so at close distance. Check out modern photography test result
you will know. The 90/2 is good for general purpose and artistic macro. The
80/4 is special for copy and insects, the 1:2 to 2:1 range is best for most
insects, it gives you very sharp pictures.
If you are serious in macro, you need both 80/4 and 134/4.5, the latter one
is good for sensitive insects which you need more working distance.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "M. Royer"
> That just reminded me thta the 80mm is mainly intended
> for 1:1 slide and copy work. It is a very flat field
> lens and will render very flat images since that is
> what it is designed to do. The 90mm Tamron is a good
> macro lens, very sharp and cheap compared to the
> Zuiko. So angain I would recommend the 135/4.5 becuase
> it is much more unique, unless of course you are
> thinking of doing copy or work with very 2D subjects.
>
> Mark Lloyd
>
< 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 >
|