But the reason for an f/2 macro lens is not for you to shoot at f/2.
It's so you can still focus at an effective f/3 instead of f/5.3 when
you're at half life-size. That said, I only have the f/3.5 version.
f/2 is too expensive. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/15/2010 12:29 AM, Moose wrote:
> On 12/14/2010 4:46 PM, WayneS wrote:
>> . . . I don't see any macros on your list? I thought every
>> zuikoholic had at least a 50/2 or 90/2. How could you be on the
>> list that long without one?
>
> Hmph! I'm pretty sure I qualify for Zuikoholic status, considering
> the plethora of Oly gear around here. But neither of those lenses
> lives here. I don't see the point of the 50/2, as I want DOF when
> shooting close up, so 50/3.5 is fine - well, better than fine. I had
> a 90/2, which seriously underwhelmed me closer than about 1:4. It now
> lives elsewhere.
>
> I don't feel a shortage of MF macro gear: 50/3.5 MC x 2 80/4 Auto
> 135/4.5 65-116 Auto Bellows - and, in OM mount - Tamron 90/2.5 Kiron
> 105/2.8
>
> Neither I nor any of them are going out in that sort of cold. :-)
>
> Moderate Climate 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/
|