Will do.
Chuck Norcutt
Dean Hansen wrote:
> I wouldn't bother with the 38mm/3.5 OM macro lens. One should put
> whatever money he'd spend on this non-automatic lens towards the
> far-more-useful 38/2.8 macro lens. OK, I was lucky--but I have picked
> up two LN 38/2.8s on our auction site for under $200 each. If someone
> just wants something to fiddle with, in a studio set-up, then the 38/3.5
> might be worth $50 with the adapter. But if you want to use a macro
> lens on insects or spiders in the field, save your money for the
> 38/2.8--there's no comparison. I'll be giving a talk on underwater
> macro photography at a major scientific meeting in Sante Fe in June, and
> the shots I've taken with the 38/2.8 will form a major part of the
> presentation. There's simply no way I could have used the older,
> non-automatic 38/3.5 to take the photos I'll be showing. No way. Pass
> on it.
> Dean
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|