Wow, that's really long... instead of trimming your message I provide my
views here:
Concerning the price and performance - It is well known that for every stop
of increase of aperture the price double, for original camera manufacturer
lens the price increase another 30-100%, that's why OM 90/2 is so expensive.
Also, it was the largest aperture 90-100mm macro in the world.
I won't question your shooting style, everyone has their own. I mainly used
the DZ 11-22 during a trip to Europe in 2004, it was a very hurry one say...
14 days for 8 countries :-) but I still changing lenses a lot. For the local
shots, I usually shoot very slowly, there are penty of time to change lens.
I'm not a pro, I don't need to make sure I can capture every important
scenes. Sometimes I just find the subject based on what lens I have mounted
on the camera instead of finding the lens that fit the subject, you will see
things differently that way. I know you do street snap of people with long
lens/zoom but I usually just do it with a 24/2 prefocused.
For the feeling of 50mm macro better for handhold, to me weight is certainly
an issue. I know people say camera movement in macro will be the same if
image magnification is the same but I just found I get more sharp shots with
short macro lens may be my next longer macros are just too heavy (90/2 and
135/4.5 with autotube).
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> On 4/10/2010 6:47 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Moose"<olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>> I was just sooo disappointed in the 90/2 that I had for close-up. Not
>>> awful, just so-so when I was expecting a lot.
>> You really expecting a lot from it, to me the close-up quality is good,
>> at least average for a 90mm macro. Here is a ~1:3 (?) shot at F2.8, not
>> bad to my eyes.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5157.JPG (ISO 800, sharpness=1, NR=0)
>>
>
> That's very nice. I don't think mine was that sharp close-up. It's been
> a few years now, so it's hard to be sure. I don't care enough to go back
> looking for old images.
>
> I never carefully tested it against my other macro lenses. I had already
> sold it by the time I bought the Tamron 90/2.8 AF in Canon mount. I do
> remember doing a lot of close-up/macro work in nature at the time and
> finding that it just didn't measure up to the Tamron 90/2.5 or Kiron
> 105/2.8 on the same sort of subjects. Maybe in reality, it wasn't much
> worse, maybe even no worse (nah), but I paid a lot more money for this
> legendary lens, so it should be better, no?
>
> In careful 1:2 and 1:1 tests on a copy stand, the new Tamron on 5D
> clearly was better than anything I had but the 50/3.5 @ 1:2, where it
> was a tie, to my eye, although the two IQs were a little different from
> each other. I didn't have the 80/4 at that time, but it's really a
> different sort of lens, not suited to full range use from infinity to 1:2.
>
>> Its excellent corner to corner performance for distance object is
>> difficult to find among the OM Zuikos I have, great for demanding
>> landscape.
>>
>
> As you can see, I didn't limit myself to Zuikos. :-) The truth is that
> I have mostly used zooms for landscapes since I got the 35-70/3.6 in the
> '70s, so over 30 years. I did for part of the time with the 35-70 have a
> Vivitar 28mm prime, but used it sparingly. I believe all my 90-105 mm
> macros to be excellent at infinity, but have done no careful testing.
> The only time I think views like you have from high up in HK would be
> good is for non-close-up lens comparisons. I would have to go to
> considerable trouble to find such great lens test subjects where I live.
>
>>> My lens for family events for many years was the 35-70/3.6. I used it on
>>> a 2n, with OTF flash indoors or under trees, and was very happy.
>> The zoom is more versatile but you know fix lenses just feel much better
>> and peoples are more respected to the image produce from fix lenses :-)
>>
>
> We each need to know and work within our own limitations. Just as the
> camera left at home, no matter how wonderful, isn't as good as the one
> carried, the lens left in the bag isn't as good as the one on the
> camera. Very occasionally, I set out to photograph with a bag of prime
> lenses and a good tripod, work slowly and choose the lens for the shot.
>
> My personal experience is that doing that gets in the way of my
> photography. I get too involved in the equipment and don't find as
> appealing, to me, subjects and compositions. The majority of my images
> happen away from home while walking in nature, usually with one or more
> other people. But to tell the truth, even when by myself, I tend to see
> the shot, take it fairly quickly, and move on.
>
> This might be a problem if I were trying to make a living as a pro
> nature/landscape photographer. As an amateur, shooting mostly to please
> myself and to some extent those I know personally, it works. Because I
> notice and want to photograph everything from the tiny to the very wide
> to the very distant, often all within a few moments, I find zooms to be
> much more transparent to me. That is, they don't get in the way, while
> primes do.
>
> It may be a little like viewfinders. Obviously, lots of folks here find
> a great deal of difference in (D)SLR viewfinders. If I hold the "tunnel
> vision, dim, mirror prism" 300D in one hand and an OM-1 in the other, I
> can see that there is a huge difference in the view through them. but
> when I used the 300D in the field, I simply didn't notice. I looked
> through the finder and saw the subject. It was transparent to me, as I
> didn't notice it getting in the way. Primes aren't transparent to me.
>
> I know it makes me less than perfect ;-) , but I just don't much like
> changing lenses. Even with just 17-35, 28-300 and 90mm macro, I
> sometimes make do with 28 mm, when wider might be better, or use the
> nice close-up capability of the 28-300 at the long end, rather than
> switch to the true macro lens. When the wind is blowing, the spray is
> flying, and/or there is a lot more to see just down the trail, I just
> want to capture my image and move on.
>
> I suppose I'm odd. I'll stand in cold, damp wind, freezing while I wait
> for the perfect wave, for the bird to turn its head just right, for a
> nice bird to fly across the sunset, and so on, but resent having to
> shield the camera in my coat and unzip a bag to change lenses. Oh well.
> ;-)
>
> I am also finding myself carrying a small camera, recently the G11, on
> my belt and using it for macro in many cases, rather than the 90/2.8 on
> 5D. Although pixel peeping IQ even at ISO 80 isn't up to the 5D, the
> greater DOF makes for better overall IQ for many flowers and similar
> subjects at reasonable viewing sizes.
>
> Although I pixel peep to compare sensor systems and lenses, which makes
> sense to me, I also take into consideration whether they would be
> practical in my use. The big, pro 1D series and Nikon equivalents or MF
> equipment may be the best there is, but I know I simply wouldn't be
> carrying them, so what good would they be for me?
>
> In practice, I and others mostly see my images on an 11.3x18.5" computer
> screen or an 8.5x11 print. Sure, I have the capability and the paper to
> print up to 13x19, but I almost never do. And even at 13x19, at normal
> viewing distances, the cameras and lenses I have are fully up to the job.
>
> Many of the images from my less than perfect zooms just knock me out at
> full computer screen size. I so much wish my distant friends could see
> them that way instead as the smaller sizes that are practical on the web.
>
> As long as Carol praises my images here at home and I get some positive
> feedback her and from other distant friends on my web images, I'm doing
> well.
>
>> ...
>>
>>> The angle of view is like 100mm on FF, but the working distance is still
>>> short. I really like the working distance of the Tamron 90/2.5 with 2x
>>> converter. 180m is great and f5 stopped down a bit is fine for sunny
>>> days.
>>>
>>>
>> More working distance is better but shorter lens is easier for handhold.
>>
>
> Is that really true? If the image size on screen or on paper is the
> same, aren't DOF and the effects of camera movement the same either way?
> I know we have the 1/focal length rule of thumb for shutter speed, but
> that's because image from the wider lens won't be enlarged to the same
> displayed subject size.
>
> If I take a picture of a ruler with 50 mm and with 180 mm and/or with
> 4/3 and FF and print them all so the ruler is the same size in the
> print, I think movement blur from my imperfection as a tripod is just
> the same in all of the prints.
>
> Or if you simply mean a smaller. lighter lens is easier to hold steady,
> I can see that. In practice, I find the mostly plastic, and therefore
> light, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro balances nicely on the 5D for me. I don't
> think a smaller, lighter lens would make any practical difference, but
> who knows?
>
> 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/
|
