I have one of the 52B lenses. It also makes really nice pictures and
works with the Oly macro flashes (they fit both 49mm and 55mm filter rings.)
The macro lenses that go to 1:1 are generally bigger and heavier than
those that go to 1:2 because of the extra focusing helicoid and the need
to remain rigid at greater extension, so the Tamron 90/2.8 is probably
noticeably bigger and heavier than the 2.5s. the Kiron 105/2.8 is a
terriffic lens that goes to 1:1, but is much bigger and heavier than the
Tamron 52B, which is quite a bit bigger and heavier than a Zuiko 100/2.8.
John Lind and other listees have reported good results with the 85/2
and extension tubes for macro work. All of these lens/solutions will get
you a lot closer than the 35-70/3.5-4.5
Moose
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas wrote:
"Ian G Skelly" <I@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I have a 500 f8 mirror with an OM fit adaptor already...or this?
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1385770629
I'm afraid this is the fixed mount, AF version of the 90/2.8. Tamron makes,
however, an Adaptall-2 version too.
BTW, there were two versions of the 90/2.5:
*52B: the oldest, with 49mm filter thread. That's the one on the other
auction (#1386455079).
*52BB: more plastic and 55mm filters. I've got one of these -- really nice
pictures.
< 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 >
|