On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Chuck Norcutt <
chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Although it seems I'm the only one who took notice it was only because
> the result was really good. I personally have no interest in the lens
> no matter how good it is primarily since I do very little macro and
> can't justify the money for it when I have workable alternatives... the
> OMZ 50/3.5 and the Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 with 1:1 converter. Just to
> show how little macro I do I haven't even tried to fit one of these to
> my E-M5 yet let alone use them. Neither have I tried to use my auto
> extension tubes. But I'll get there eventually. My future lens
> purchases will likely be the 75-300 next and maybe some day the 9-18.
> Even if I could easily afford the 60/2.8 I think I'd hesitate based on
> short working distance of the short focal length.
Chuck,
A 60mm DZ is the equivalent of a 120/2.8 in film terms. That would have
been considered very generous in working distance back in the day, almost
as good as the legendary 135/4.5 with a great deal more speed and
brightness. You seem to be one tough customer. What exactly would suit
your needs? Just curious!
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|