Dear Zuikoholics,
Zuikoholism is bothering me again. I have 90/2 that I use very much for macro
shots with 4Ti and with E-1. I have began to play with an idea of buying 50/3,5
macro. They are quite cheap. I am just curious that do I really NEED that
50/3,5?
I have understood that in macro photography the depth of field is not dependent
on the focal lenth, but on the magnification. Therefore there is no NEED for me
to buy a shorter macro lens. But the angle of view does change according to
focal length even for macro shots (am I right?). Therefore I might have some
use for a 50/3,5.
I really would like to see an example of what does the angle of view look like
for these two lenses (if the photos are taken of the same subject). Does anyone
have some examples to share? Is there any difference in perspective?
What about sharpness and contrast? Is 90/2 so superior to 50/3,5 that I
shouldn't even consider it? I bet that the difference is not that huge...
Best regards,
Olli
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|