On 4/9/2010 8:36 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nicholas Herndon"<nherndon@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Moose opined:
>>> I've not compared them myself, but I'm convinced that a 50/2 wouldn't
>>> outperform my 50/3.5s for copy work
>> The 50/3.5 is unparalleled for copy work. I love it on digital for product
>> shots; it gives an extremely flat field and ZERO distortion. But what about
>> other macro work? (I have no experience with the 50/2 so I can't say).
>>
> Don't know about close up but for distance object my 50/2 is better than my
> 50/3.5 MC from center to edges, it has excellent edge to edge performance
> even at F2. Here are some samples taken with 5D II.
>
That's what I have heard ever so often from various sources. However, I
was only talking about macro/copy work. I have no need for another 50mm
normal lens. And I find the 50mm FL too short for outdoor macro.
>>> The 85/2 is very nice, but I'm not convinced it would make much real
>>> difference for most purposes to use the 100/2.8.
>>>
>> For portraiture, the 85/2 kicks a llama's @ss. The 100/2.8 has (in my
>> opinion) terrible out of focus area rendering (or bokeh, if you will).
>> I have a feeling the 100/2.8 might be a hair sharper. The 100/2 is
>> far superior to either, at least from what I've seen (I haven't used
>> it, only the 85/2 and 100/2.8).
>>
>>
> The 100/2.8 MC I once owned had beautiful color (a bit cool) and sharp for
> distance objects but 85/2 seems better for close up and I like the extra stop.
The 100/2.8 is the only SC, silver nose lens I use, so I suppose it had
slightly different color. I've heard that the 85/2 is good for close-up,
including with extension tubes, but I've always used true macro lenses
for that.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|