John Duggan wrote:
"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."
I have the auto bellows, and a set of Vivitar extension tubes. My own setup for
in-the-field macro shots is a 50 3.5 on a 12mm tube plus the 2XA converter. I
mostly used this at a fixed magnification of 1x.
I have tried the bellows, but they are just too unweildy. When I'm chasing
insects and spiders I need something which is fixed, and reasonably
manouverable. I don't use a tripod, but sometimes I use a monopod, just for
better focussing stability when I'm over-reaching bushes.
I use flash, so I don't need a tripod for time exposures. I have a T32+BG2, and
a T20 mounted alongside the lens. In my opinion the flash is the most difficult
thing to get right.
Hence with the weight of the flash system (even Olympus!), I don't want any
extra weight from the auto bellows.
With my system I can get down to 1.6x magnification when needed. The 50mm lens
can scare away some creatures, but I just use patience. Approach slowly and you
can get amazingly close. See my TOPE Macro entry for example. I would however
like to get a longer macro lens, and sometimes the f/3.5 means I don't have a
lot of light to focus with. I have used the 100mm f/2.8 succesfully, although
again it does make the setup more unweildy.
Chris
< 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 >
|