Yep, they work just like the Oly DZ lenses (auto-focus, auto-exposure)
but have the advantage of real, honest-to-god-turn-the-lens-barrel
manual focus.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Scott Peden
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:50 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
The sigma's have auto on a 4/3rds system?
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
Of Geilfuss Charles
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:33 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
I bought the Sigma 105 macro e few months ago and am very
pleased with it. It is very sharp, good contrast and pleasant bokeh. The
working distance at 1:1 is about 11 inches. The autofocus can be set to
operate in full range or limited to "normal" distances. In full macro
the focus is very slow but I rarely use it that way opting for manual
focus when shooting macro. In the limited range the auto focus is no
different from the DZ lenses. I really like the manual focus as it is
real manual focus, not the fly-by-wire nonsense. Unfortunately I don't
maintain a webpage so I can't display any photos with the Sigma.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Moose
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:11 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Mini Macro questions
Dan Mitchell wrote:
> Moose wrote:
>
>> First, I am not suggesting that you get a 90 mm lens.
>>
>
> That said, this prompted me to retrieve the Viv S1 90/2.5 1:1 macro
> off the shelf, and _wow_, is it ever a more pleasant experience taking
> photos with that than with the reversed 7mm.
Your comments lead me to something I either didn't know or had
forgotten. I wanted to make clear that I wasn't recommending a 90 mm
lens because I thought Scott might be thinking of a MF lens and I didn't
think there was an AF one available. I figured it is fine if he makes
that MF choice, but I don't ant to push it. I personally wouldn't want
my primary lens for hiking through the woods to be MF, but others will
have other ideas about that. The Tammy 90 Di is great, with the MF/AF
switch in push/pull of the focus ring, but not available in 4/3 mount.
Now I realize that the Sigma 105/2.8 EX DG Macro is available in 4/3
mount. I don't know anything about it except it has a 9.1 avg. rating
from 52 userson the FM ratings forum, which is really good.
With a 4/3 field of view eq. of about 200 mm on full frame, it would
have great working distance and is about $100 cheaper than the DZ 50/2.
A stop slower means less bright finder, but not much.
It wouldn't "fill the frame" any better than 50/2 with EX-25, 1:1 is
1:1, regardless of focal length, but it would do it from further away.
The thing I don't know about is DOF. My sense is that the trade-off for
the working distance would be less DOF, but I can't do the juggling of
different sensor sizes and focal lengths in my head.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|