What are you planning to do with it? I have used the 50/3.5 for hundreds
of slides copying images on paper and the results have been uniformly
excellent. In this kind of work, speed is totally irrelevant. I
generally shoot at f8 or f11 to be in the lenses 'sweet spot' and, more
importantly, for good depth of field to cover any focus error and
imperfect flatness in the books, magazines, etc. being held down with a
piece of glass.
When you start doing CU/macro photography of 3D objects, you will find
that DOF is a crucial subject and f3.5 is hopeless, let alone f2. Edge
sharpness and flatness of field are also a moot points for most 3D
objects as everything out of the central area is out of focus due to DOF
anyway.
If you are interested in outdoor nature shots, think about working
distance. I think the 50/3.5 is an excellent lens, but I don't like it
for field macro work. The working distance is just too short and that
would apply to the 50/2 also. A longer focal length is much better. It
doesn't scare off the bugs as easily and it's easier to keep equipment
shadows off the subject. I've never been up to paying for the 90/2, but
hear it's excellent. Other list members report excellent results with
the 85/2 and extension tubes. The 50/1.4 with a Vivitar Macro
Teleconverter makes a good 100/2.8 that focuses to 1:1 with really good
quality. The Tamron/Vivitar/Tokina/Sigma 90/f2.5(8) et. al. are good
lenses that go to 1:2, but require extension tubes to go to 1:1. The
Tamron 90/2.5 with their 2X Adaptall converter is a 180/5.0 that goes to
1:1, gives excellent working distance and results and is longer,
cheaper, easier to handle and only 1/3 stop slower than the 135/4.5 with
65-116. One favorite of mine is the Kiron 105/2.8, which focuses
directly to 1:1 without accessories. The big focus mechanism and rugged
metal construction make it a bit heavy, but I love the results. Another
possibility I haven't tried yet is the 135/2.8 with tubes and converter.
Extension tubes on longer teles can give amazing closeups from a
considerable distance.
I emphasize 1:1 not because I take a lot of shots that close, but
because a lot of times I find 1:2 isn't quite enough and doing a lot of
fussing to add a tube (and then take it off for the next shot) may lose
the shot (or a later one I don't get to). I also find the 1:1.55
capability of the Tamron SP 60-300 very effective. Just my experience,
others may vary.
Moose
Walt Wayman wrote:
Message text written by INTERNET:olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am also interested in getting into MACRO photography and I've been
thinking about getting a 50/3.5MC lens to try. But if the 50/2MC is
that much better in the MACRO capability, then I may change my mind
(though the price is almost double).
It's not. Read C.H. Ling's post. He was exactly right on all counts.
There's probably more bang for the buck in the 50/3.5 macro than any other
Zuiko, with the possible exception of the MIJ 50/1.8.
< 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 >
|