So Jim, after you do the Hokey Bokeh, do you turn yourself around?
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/26/2003 at 9:34 PM Jim Couch wrote:
>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 >
< 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 >
|