Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 200mm f4, good or not??

Subject: Re: [OM] 200mm f4, good or not??
From: Christopher Biggs <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 10 Mar 1998 07:08:44 +1000
PCA Cala <PCACala@xxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and spake thusly:

> 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 macrophotography, that's not so.

If you keep the *magnification* the same, depth of field is only
dependent upon aperture, and *not* focal-length.

Obviously the working distance will vary with focal length, and for a
given focal length DoF will vary with subject distance, *but* in
macrophotography changing lenses will not gain depth-of-field.

Chris.

--
Christopher Biggs -- chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Ph+61-7-3270-4266 - PGP & MIME OK
There's a bug in my mailer that mangles my sig but V guvax V'ir svkrq vg abj.
Uneqyl jbegu qrpbqvat, jnf vg? Rznvy zr "Fhowrpg: fraqctcxrl" sbe zl CTC xrl.


############################################################
| 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
############################################################


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz