At 11:45 PM 4/16/2005,
ScottGee1 wrote:
> - Focuses to .7m/2.3ft vs. 1.6m/5.2ft for the Oly and results are
>remarkably good in close.
> - Tamron is multicoated and apparently very few if any of the Oly
> examples are.
[snip]
>FWIW, I initially planned to get an Oly 85 or 100 but realized that in
>practical use a zoom is far more handy in this range, so . . . .
If you get into focusing closer . . . 1:4 and higher mag macros . . .
you'll find primes easier to set up and work with. The 85/2 is a marvelous
lens with 49mm ring. Small and light, it's one of the "forgotten,"
overshadowed by the stellar 100/2 and 90/2 Macro. The performance of mine
belies the two Gary Reese tested (maybe I was lucky ??). Not the top of
the line (that goes to the 50/1.2) but definitely well above average . . .
and its bokeh has proven decent (has 8 blades). I've gotten some photos
with it using fine-grain chrome film that can be greatly enlarged without
showing loss of resolution anywhere. Combined with extension tubes, it's a
"poor man's" 90/2. If the OM auto-tubes are too much for the budget,
Vivitar made a slightly longer and much less expensive auto-tube set that
works very well with it. The OM tube lengths were designed specifically
for 1:1 macro with a 50mm (46mm total), hence their shorter length. The
Vivitar lengths (68mm total) should get at least very close 1:1 with an
85mm. Never measured it to see if they actually do. Seems to have
sufficient field flatness for most macro work . . . but very rarely do flat
copy work . . . my macro subject material typically has some depth and the
challenge is getting enough diffused light to allow stopping down for
sufficient depth of field at high magnification using slow film.
-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|