Moose wrote:
>C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>
>>>This is shot on Portra 160NC with a 50/3.5 at 1/15, f22 on a CF tripod,
>>>Bogen 410 head, "wetware" vibration damping, no aperture/mirror prefire. It
>>>is just the 2000x3000 scan I get from the processor, with no adjustment at
>>>all <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/_4A_0234s.jpg>. It may not be a
>>>great image and would look better with a bit of sharpening, but I don't see
>>>the kind of unsharpness that comes from vibration. When I get a chance, I'll
>>>try to post some better examples.
>>>
>>Ok, if there is no wind, a tripod is feasable and I was using a short macro
>>then slower speed works. For long macro I will avoid slow speeds or I will
>>use flash.
>>
>Oooh, I just KNEW you were going to say that. I just happened to be
>looking at some shots I took with the 50/3.5 when this topic came up, so
>that's what I posted. Most of my macro shots are with 90, 105 and 135mm
>lenses and I find no more problem with them. As you say, I use tripod,
>hand hold to absorb vibration, shoot when there is little or no wind and
>often wait for a quiet moment when the subject isn't moving.
>
I don't have many real close-ups with the 90/2 yet for a couple of reasons.
One, I haven't owned it very long. Two, it doesn't focus closer than 1:2
without some kind of help. I'm going to try an extention tube with it some
more, although I think that's just asking for vibration trouble. I'm also going
to try it with a close-up lens. I have the Oly 55mm B-Macro 2 element CU lens
made for the IS-somethings.
An aside on close-up lenses. For OM lenses, Oly only made conventional single
element close-up lenses, but they made 2 and 3 element lenses for the IS
series. They are really rather good. Here are a couple of shots with the 49mm
"A" macro lens on a 200/5, Portra 160NC. Not a bad long close-up lens. Again,
these are just 2000x3000 scans as they came from the processor, but I'm not
sure it makes much difference at this reduced size:
f22, 1/125 <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/18A_0248.jpg>.
f16, 1/30 <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/20A_0250.jpg>. Yes, the little
stringy thing was on the lavender. On the film, it would have turned up white.
In the meantime, I can offer one shot taken with the 90/2, f4 at 1/15
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/3649_36inset.jpg>. I see I missed perfect
focus on the yellow parts, but hit the petals, where subtle detail of veins is
clear. No sign I can see of vibration induced unsharpness, or am I missing
something?
I have quite a few shots with the Kiron 105/2.8, which is larger and heavier
than the 90/2, which may or may not help with vibration. Although I still
haven't labeled the individual shots in this gallery, this and the next 4 shots
were taken with the Kiron, apertuers in the 11-22 range and speeds of 1/30-1/8,
depending on the shot as I was playing a bit with DOF, bokeh and sharpness. I
lost to subject movement on the last one (click on the down arrow to see.), but
I sure can't see any vibration problems in the others. I would call them "tack
sharp".
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
