The 135/4.5 w/the 65-112 Auto Tube will give you a lot more working
distance than the 90/2. I like both of them. Images are a tad sharper
with the 90/2, and it's a more conventional lens. They each have their
advantages. Get 'em both! :-)))
Skip
At 3/16/00 09:29 PM -0500, you wrote:
Hi folks,
Just reviewing my equipment needs for the upcoming wildflower season here in
the Northeast and my thoughts wandered to the 135mm 3.5 macro/auto extension
tube combo.
I was wondering if anyone had any general comments regarding this outfit, and
specifically, whether it offered any real-world advantages over the 90mm 2.0
zuiko, as I already own that fine lens. Does the extra 45mm in focal length
really make a difference? I know 180mm macro-telephotos are all the rage
with our more modern competitors, and was curious about what we all thought
about the closest Zuiko relation.
Also, (I'm really dating myself here) does anyone know the whereabouts of R.
Lee Hawkins - esteemed creator and maintainer of the great OM SLR FAQ and one
of the earliest list members?
Regards,
Greg Logiodice
<A HREF="http://www.gplphotography.com/";>Photography by G. P. Logiodice</A>
< 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 >
-----------------------------------------------
Skip Williams
Westfield, NJ
skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.skipwilliams.com
-----------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|