Hello Tatu:
<< . . . [using] a 90mm macro, but its hard to use small apertures without
loosing smooth backgrounds. >>
What do you mean by smooth backgrounds? Out of focus? The 90 will throw them
out of focus faster than a 50 mm macro. The 200 would have very shallow depth
of field and throw them out of focus even faster.
In botanical photography (my speciality) you need all the depth of field you
can get. I stick with a 50 mm from work at 1:2 or lesser magnification. I
flash the subject at 2 stops over ambient light, giving the illusion of the
plant being separate from the background, even if my typical f/stop (16) has
too much depth of field to do so optically.
I've never been satisfied using a 135 mm macro for botanical work due to the
depth of field limitations. A 200 mm isn't corrected for macro work, plus a
65-116 tube is way too long for simple extension of the focusing range.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|