On 9/15/2013 5:46 AM, Chuck Norcutt 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.
It's just not the same. It wasn't even the same with the 5D, where the lenses
weren't monsters compared to the camera. I
have both those lenses and have used them extensively on a copy stand for flat
copy work. Both are excellent.
But for work away from the 'lab', the lack of AF is a negative. Hand held, it's
really problematic. Even with a tripod,
I suspect most folks here would have trouble nailing focus without magnified
live view. So fine if one has few subjects
and lots of time. Not for me.
I have used the Tamron 90/2.8 AF, 1:1 Macro lens, extensively at times, less
often at others, although I always carried
it in the field. I think the good close focus at the long end of the 28-300 on
the smaller sensor of the 60D made it
necessary for fewer subjects, especially those hard to get close to.
> Neither have I tried to use my auto extension tubes. But I'll get there
> eventually.
They are cool, so small and light, and bring closer focus in seconds.
> My future lens
> purchases will likely be the 75-300 next and maybe some day the 9-18.
That's the way I'd go. I do end up using the Panny 20/1.7 occasionally for the
speed at night and in dark places.
> 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.
As I posted before, the working distance is pretty good for the high
magnification. In practice, I suppose the ability
to go closer than my other lenses seamlessly, without extreme magnification,
will be of more use than 1:1.
It'll be interesting to see how much I use it. I've always liked macro lenses,
starting with my dad's 55 mm
Micro-Nikkor, all those decades ago (which I now have). long zooms that get
close at the long end have lessened the
need, but I think not eliminated it.
With decent technique in taking and in post, the zooms deliver pretty good
detail, but not nearly up to the 60/2.8.
> I also hesitate over the 9-18 since the the 24mm equivalent of the 12-50
> seems to cover most
> of what I need and panos usually cover any wider needs.
The place the 9-18 delivers, although I've used it for landscapes, is in closer
quarters. When in close(ish), panos
don't work. The depth of subjects like this cause havoc with a pano approach.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/ElfinForest/slides/_MG_1155ptl.html>
These, too, are impossible without a single, SWA shot.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/Main/slides/_MG_1273.html>
And.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MorroBay/HearstCastle/delMonte/slides/_MG_1244.html>
Well, perhaps not with full pano gear that carefully rotates around the front
lens node? But I'm not going to carry that
stuff around out in the woods, even if it does work. In Hearst Castle, I was
always being rushed to get a single shot
off after everyone else stepped out and before the guide got on my case.
I'd have the Panny 7-14, if it weren't twice as big and heavy as the 9-18.
Lensatic Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|