On 12/15/2010 5:31 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> 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.
> :-)
I've never had a problem focusing with the 50/3.5. Ergo no need for the expense
of the f2.
One of my first posts on this list was about sharpness comparison of
performance of some lenses based on Gary's tests.
It resulted in off list correspondence with Gary. My conclusion was that used
at optimum apertures, the difference
between 50/3.5 and 50/2 was likely insignificant.
My own tests show the 50/3.5 to be just excellent down to 1:2 and still very
good at 1:1. I've used the 50/3.5 and
Tamron 90/2.5 extensively for flat copy work and they are both first rate. With
my relatively short copy stand, I use
both, depending on subject size, often swapping back and forth during a
session. With the 80/4 Auto now at hand,
optimized for 1:2 to 2:1, I just don't feel the need for another 50 mm macro
lens.
I know many people use their macro lens for general shooting, believing or
knowing that it outperforms their standard 50
mm lens even at longer focal distances. When I was quite young, I used to use
dad's Micro-Nikkor that way, based, I'm
afraid, on hearsay, not knowledge. In any case, if I need something faster for
non close-up work, the >1.1 million
50/1.4 works excellently.
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/
|