Moose,
The thing that confounds me, with macro lenses, and I should have expected
this from the start, is that as one moves in closer to the subject, the DOF
decreases to a ridiculous point. My Leica Elmarit-R 60/2.8 Macro lens
requires stopping down to a minimum opening in order to get the full subject
in focus. I'm sure this is fine for flat subjects, but just doesn't work
out for me, particularly with flowers.
And I don't even have the 1:1 attachment for the lens.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Dude - Who stole my 0.56ms?
> On 4/9/2010 8:24 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>> On 09 Apr 2010, at 12:13 PM, Moose wrote:
>>
>>
>>> (My personal experience with the 90/2 was quite disappointing, but I
>>> know that's not universal.)
>>>
>> You're darn right it's not universal! :-)
>
> Nor am I alone. In past discussions, there have been a handful of others
> who have agreed with me, along with a majority who have agreed with you.
> If there was a common thread, it might be actual use of a lens labeled
> "Macro" for macro use.[Oh, a bit snarky there, Moosie!]
>
> It may have been my particular example, although it appeared to be in
> perfect shape. In any case, it was just fine from infinity to about 1:4
> or so. By the time you got to 1:2, it's closest focus without
> assistance, it was quite noticeably softer than my other macro lenses.
>
> After my Kodak Brownie Hawkeye, all my youthful photography depended on
> use of my father's equipment or hand-me-downs. There were a number of
> interesting steps along the way. One of the most memorable was when he
> bought the 55mm Micro-Nikkor. WOW! As sharp or sharper than the
> standard 50/1.4 at normal distances and able to go where I'd not gone
> before in close-ups. The 200/4 Nikkor was also important to me. From
> Hawkeye through old 6x9 folder, TLR, Praktika and Topcon Super D,
> everything had been 'normal' focal length with limited close-focus.
> Different fields of view were exciting to me. (I inherited the lenses
> along with his F2a, but keep them more as mementos that to use.)
>
> How much due to that history, how much to my unusual visual acuity and
> how much to whatever psychological quirks, I have always noticed and
> been attracted to homing in on small parts of larger subjects. Nice bed
> of flowers? Sure, I'll take a shot or two
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4015.htm>
> - then get in close for individual flowers or parts of them - and their
> friends. <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4017.htm>
>
> Everybody who visits Yosemite Valley takes shots of El Capitan, making
> sure to get the whole, majestic 3,000 ft. monolith. How many go to 300mm
> to take a shot like this?
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020501_03.htm>
> You've seen lots of shots of the valley and its landmarks. How many of
> high, hanging valleys on the rim?
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020428-29_22.htm>
> - <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020430-501_25.htm>
> Sure, there are great trees, including some of the largest in the world,
> but there are also tiny ones, surviving in their little rock niches.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Yosemite2ip/pages/020429_11.htm>
>
> Soooo ... Tele and macro are important to me. I already had perfectly
> fine medium teles and longish macros, but the 90/2 was a Zuiko! and a
> legendary performer! Had I bought it for another purpose, perhaps I'd
> have been happy with it. As it was, it underperformed what I already had
> - and moved on.
>
>> The 90/2.0 is a god of a lens, surpassed only by the 250/2.0 in my
>> experience. And it has a whole lot of extra "character" to boot... The
>> most "un-clinical" modern lens I have ever used.
>>
>
> Interesting. As we've agreed, we have very different photographic
> preferences. I tend to buy a macro for "clinical", not "character". You
> use the 90/2 as a fast, normal distance, medium tele. I'd have thought
> the 85/2 would be better for that, but am happy you get so much pleasure
> from your 90/2.
>
>> Anyway, just needed to shout out for me' favourite lens. As you were...
>>
>
> Enjoy!
>
> 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|