I have both the 50/3.5 and the Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter
MC. They have different strengths and so are best suited for different uses.
- The 50/3.5 is a flat field lens specifically designed for close focus
work, whereas 'regular' lenses are not and likely even less so when used
with a converter.
- I mostly use the 50/3.5 on a copy stand for making slides of
flat images on paper for University lectures.
- Using say a 50/1.8 and the Vivitar for this, I'm sure I would
have problems with edge sharpness.
- The 50/3.5 focuses to 1:2 without extension tubes. A standard 50mm
lens on the Vivitar focuses directly to 1:1. This makes a big practical
difference in the field.
- Much macro 'nature' photography features a central subject that is
(one hopes) in focus, surrounded by out of focus stuff around it. A true
flat field focal plane is less significant here as the subjects aren't
flat and most of the perfection is lost in areas that are out of focus
anyway. If that flower fills the whole frame and happens to be concave
or convex in the direction of the lens' abberation, it could even help
(or not).
- Working distance is different. A 50/1.8 on the Vivitar becomes a
100/3.6. Because of the large distance from the front element of the
50/3.5 to the front of the lens, the working distance from the front of
the 50/3.5 to the subject will be less than half of the working distance
for the Vivitar with a regular 50mm lens at the same reproduction ratio.
Using the macro teleconverter with an 85/2 or 100/2.8 improves the
working distance even more. This can be quite significant when shooting
nature. I personally don't like the 50/3.5 outside. Over thirty years
ago, I used a 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor as my regular lens because of the
limitations of fast 50-55mm lenses of the time. That isn't a problem
with later MC Zuikos.
My recommendations? For true copywork, a real macro lens is a must. On a
budget and taking pics of flowers, bugs, lichen, etc,. the Vivitar is
perfect. -and you can use it as a quality teleconverter on other lenses.
Moose
Johan Malmström wrote:
Fellows!
In my local photoshop (or camera store, not the application from A*obe) I've
found one Zuiko 50/3.5 Macro that I have wanted a some months now, due to my
student budget keeping the Zuikoholic in order. Recent mailings on this list
have opened my eyes for a other piece equipment that is for sale in same
shop, a Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter MC. The "want" for the macro
is slowly turning to "need". I have realized that I do have extension tubes
for macro but no teleconveter... I do have a Zukio 135/2.8 that could be
extended and replace the Tokina 300/5.6 I have (and love to hate).
So now I ask you to tell me: Do I get 5 times more bang for the buck with
the Zuiko-lens? Can I learn to like my 300/5.6 with another focusing screen?
Please help...
/ Johan - I do want my master degree so I can earn some OMoney
< 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 >
< 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 >
|