Scott, you didn't trim the old post material off this. Try to be fair to
the digest users.
Scott Peden wrote:
> Moose,
>
> So, your suggesting a 50 mm lens. If I have a EX 25, any Zuiko 50 mm will
> work, or would a Zuiko 50 mm macro work better? Specifically a 50/2?
>
You have by now read my thoughts on the advantages of true macro lenses
for what you are trying to do. yes, you want a macro lens.
Next, there are two Zuiko 50/2 macros, one in OM mount and the newer
Digital Zuiko. The OM 50/2 is a legendary lens - but - there has been a
huge amount of progress in lens technology in the decades since its
design, so the DZ may well be better. I don't know of any head to head
test. Obviously it would be more convenient to have an AF lens for many
shots.
> I have a VINTAGE "OLYMPUS-ZUIKO AUTO-S" 50mm f1.4
>
The 50/1.4 was made for many years and there were at least four
different versions. Buying blind is a chancy thing. If you have a pic of
the front lens ring, it is possible to say something about likely
performance. It could make a big difference wide open for your stated
purpose of taking non-macro pics at the aquarium. Most early ones are
not particularly good opened up while the later ones are decent wide
open and excellent by f2.
> That I have been trying to get a fast payment to him, he doesn't take Pay
> Pal, he does take BidPay, Bid Pay doesn't take my Amex credit card, so after
> wasting days at this, I'll take time off work to get a stupid money order or
> wait 2 more weeks before it gets here. Some auctions are a real PITA.
>
> This not being a Macro lens, would I do better with getting an actual Macro?
>
For the aquarium, no. For macro, yes. That's why I have both a late
model 50/1.4 and a 30/3.5 macro.
> I looked for 50/2 lenses, didn't see anything under 300 dollars.......and
> then it was only one under $400, this is the price range I should expect?
>
Yup, and you get what you pay for.
> Honestly, if this is "it" or if a 90/2 would be as good or better,
You do not, in my opinion want the Zuiko 90/2. Whatever it says on the
lens, it is not a good lens for the type of macro you want. People on
this list are forever posting moderate close-up shots with this lens and
praising it. And it is a great lens down to maybe 1:4. I and a couple of
others here found that it goes downhill closer than that. Since I had
the wonderful 85/2 for normal use and the excellent Tamron 90/2.5 and
Kiron 105/2.8 lenses already, I simply sold my 90/2.
> please,
> all of you knowledgeable folks speak up, I'll have maybe $200-250 at the
> beginning of next month I can invest in my Zuikoholic fix.
If you know for sure the DOF implication of using a longer lens, and if
you are sure you will be happy with manual focus and aperture control,
you could get a good MF 90-105 mm macro in the f2.5-2.8 range for less
than that. However, DOF is one of your biggest issues. Look before you leap.
In this case, I think haste will likely make waste. I'd wait another
month, research the DOF issues and get either the DZ 50/2 or the Sigma
105/2.8 AF macro. Having the right tool later is better than the wrong
tool sooner.
> <snip>
>
> I'm glad you like the DOF in the Pixie cup...
Did I say that? Well if so, I mis-spoke. I would want more DOF for that
subject. What I thought I said was that the doctored version I posted
clear shows the extent of DOF problem.
> but I wasn't happy with any of
> them, as I had nothing that was sharp and I moved the macro rail a little
> one way then a little the other and for some reason, they all came out about
> the same or terribly out of focus, but I wasn't worried about deleting a few
> pics, I was worried that I couldn't see well enough in the view finder to
> get the focus just right,
You need a faster lens for focusing and more light so you can stop down
for DOF. Again, I would recommend against going longer in FL until you
find out about DOF. I just don't have the itme right now to go through
the DOF calculator.
And by the way, you havn't yet answered my question some time ago about
how these images are to be presented, only on the web, in prints of what
size? That makes a difference for DOF.
> I have that trouble a lot, so I shoot more closer
> and further away hoping to get one in focus. When I did the reverse macro
> and had a portion of the cup in focus, that was excellent, it was sharp. But
> nair the Twain did meet, nor did I make a Mark on that Clemens.
>
That is at least in part because you don't have the right equipment.
Just because you can get an image with what you are using, doesn't mean
it is possible to get a good image that way. A reversed 14-45 DZ is not
a real macro tool.
> Did I understand you suggestion, focus at 2.0, then move closer to 3.5 or
> 5.6?
Well, sortta. More like focus wide open, then stop down to f11, or even
smaller. If you are shooting at f3.5-5.6, it's no wonder you have too
little DOF.
> I started doing that with a ballast quality lens I got real cheap and
> it sure helped a lot, I am learning manual, which if I'd had the money to
> buy all the auto stuff, I'd never had a chance to learn the basics I guess.
>
> Who makes the DZ 50?
>
DZ is shorthand for Digital Zuiko, Olympus.
> OK, just read the 'true macro' paragraph, I got that now, non macro's won't
> give me as sharp of a picture when made to do macro work though in their
> range are great lenses.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly go over my myriad of questions, and
> I'm even more thankful that you replied in a manner that is within my
> ability to grasp at this point in time, even as basic as you went, I wonder
> if I've understood all of this last Christmas......
>
Hard to know...... It's worth while helping with someone working hard to
do something well.
> When I first started doing Macros with the C-3000 and then cropping to get a
> picture the size I wanted, my fiends would invariably ask, are you taking
> pics of the bugs, or the flowers.
>
> My pat answer was always "YES!".
Me too - both <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/10-1053.htm>.
> And now I'm getting pollen in the picture,
> along with a whole new level of unseen bugs.
>
> Saturday or Sunday I will get some super macro's of the flower buds of a
> Buck Brush (Ceanothus) California native Lilac, the flower buds are more
> amazing to me than the flowers themselves, but they are just hard rocks,
> then unkempt puff balls, until you can see them up close and in detail.
>
Ceanothus is mostly already in full bloom here. I'll take a look to see
if there are still some with buds.
> <snip>
>
> Tomorrow is in the opposite direction, documenting with a long lens, what I
> am told is the most southern, by at least 100 miles, Old Methuselah's beard
> Lichen to be known to exist.
>
> Love those digital cameras and the excuse to get a few miles of hiking in.
>
have Fun!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|