The biggest difference you'll see right away is working distance. For a
given reproduction ratio, the 200mm will be more than twice the distance
than the 90mm. Depth of field I think is the same. Perspective is an
interesting question. For "normal" situations the 200mm will of course
compress distance more, giving a "flatter" appearance. However, as you
approach 1:1, and beyond, I'd expect perspective to become less important as
DoF gets very small.
You might want to consider the Zuiko 135mm macro to see if it suits your
needs better.
John P
David Irisarri Vila <valicors@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<...........>
What is the difference between a Zuiko 90mm/f2
MACRO and 200mm/f3.5 (in my case)?
-Working distance?
-Depth of field?
-More accurate true-to-life perspective?
Please, if somebody could help me; beacause I was planning to buy a
Zuiko 90mm/f2 but???
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|