The 135, combined with the telescoping auto tube is my favorite setup
for flowers and butterflies. The real advantage lies in the working
distance you gain over the 80mm. The bokeh is wondeful, I would describe
it (hokey as it may sound) as 'smooth and creamy" The 135 f/2.8
actually works fairly well for macro stuff as well. Bokeh is not as
good, and you will need more than 25mm worth of tube in most cases.. It
does work well with the telescoping tube. I have found that the more
exspensive multi-element close-up lenses (such as Nik*ns work well, but
are definatly more flare prone, and the lens hood becomes less
effective, or cannot be used. (The Nik*n is 62mm and has to be used with
a step-up ring so you cannot use the built in lens hood.)
Jim Couch
Fast Primes wrote:
I know the Zuiko 135F4.5 macro is optimized for a 1:5 ratio and will
of course, be better corrected than a 135F2.8 or 135F3.5 Zuiko on MTF
curves and test charts. But what about such things as flowers and
butterflies? How about such qualities as "bokeh"? How does a 135F2.8
with a 25mm extension tube or high quality 55mm close-up lens fare
against the 135F4.5 macro itself?
Thanks.
fast_primes
< 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 >
|