I just quoted the repro ratio at close focus without extension for the
21/3.5 and 21/2. I've always assumed the WAs wouldn't be that great
close up, so I've never tried them. It's interesting that the SIF says
one thing: " It incorporates a floating element group to provide
superior image quality at close focusing distances." for the 28/2 &
24/2, but another for the 21/2: " The floating lens group solves the
problem of image fall-off at close distances". So the floating elements
in the 21/2 aren't primarily intended to improve close focus sharpness,
but to deal with vignetting.
I use macro lenses for macro work. I have this weird thing about using
the most suitable tool for the job. Usually, that is a tool designed for
the job. Minimal effort for maximal result is my plan.
Moose
C.H.Ling wrote:
What I heard is normal lenses are design optimum at infinity. BTW most
Zuiko standard to wide lenses without close focusing correction are
not good at close distance (e.g. at 1:10), I can say it is only
usable.
C.H.Ling
dreammoose wrote:
It is not possible with current technology, at least at prices we
would/could pay, to design a lens that is acceptably sharp at both 1:40
and 2:1. The conventional Zuiko wide angles are designed for optimum
performance in conventional photography from infinity to about 1:6, and
probably optimum about 1:40. The short focal length macro lenses are
optimized for much different repro ratios, in the case of the 20/2,
4.2:1 through 16:1. Use of just about any conventional lens beyond about
1:2 will give noticeably inferior results.
< 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 >
|