Hmm. Let's add it up, for $155 USD (Skip's average price) you get a 50/3.5
macro but to use it at a nice working distance for tabletop photographs, you
need a macro-focusing teleconverter which is about $50 USD. Or for $139,
you can get a Series1 90mm macro.
For less money you get f / 2.5 instead of f / 7. (That's more than 2
whole stops- more than four times as much light.) It's like getting a 180
f2.8 for less than the price of a 200/5.
Whew, I'm right again. This is getting scary. So, Keith, I guess I agree
with myself- sell the 50, sell the Vivitar adapter and get some kind of
purpose-built 90 macro.
Not really. Use the tools you have. Try one frame of each.
I was gonna suggest using a tape measure to set focus- a technique they use
when making movies in low light but it wouldn't work if the converter has a
helical. (It would work perfectly with the purpose-built 90 macro though.
"Precisely 247mm from the focal plane- coming right up.") Duh! I'm right
again!
Lama
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> In theory, you should get sharper results with the 50/3.5, <edited>
> At infinity with the 2x, it becomes a 100/7 lens, already
> dim enough to cause trouble focusing. Then as you go into macro range,
> the effective aperture gets even smaller, as happens with all macro
> extensions, but it's particularly bad starting so slow. I'm not talking
> about exposure aperture, but the amount of light available for
> viewing/focusing with the lens wide open.
Keith Allchin Sheffield UK wrote:
> >I have the Vivitar 2X Macrofocussing Teleconverter. For macro work, is it
> >better to use it with the 50/3.5 macro or the 50/1.8? I have both lenses.
< 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 >
|