From: Garth Wood <garth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Depth of field questions
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 10:40:15 -0600
At 08:32 AM 5/5/00 -0700, Mark Marr-Lyon wrote:
> >Talking about 90/2, which is a lens that can nicely balance between
> >distance object and 1:2 but it does not really perform very well at
> >macro mode, with my own experience and the result from Modern
> >photography, it is only a so so lens for macro works. For serious
> >macro, you should try 50/3.5 or 80/4.
> >
> >C.H.Ling
>
>Hmm, interesting. I guess with all the raves about the 90/2, I had
>assumed it was an excellent macro lens too (what with "macro" being
>in the lens name and all). Anyway, that is very good to know!
Mark:
Before you go writing off the 90/2.0 Zuiko, check out Gary Reese's lens
tests at:
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
Gary's tests of the 90 indicate that many of the softness problems may be
attributable to camera shake, rather than inherent limitations of the lens
itself. Perhaps Gary could comment more. From my own experience, the
90/2.0 is an exceptional macro lens (though like all lenses designed this
way, it's truly optimized at about the 1:10 reproduction ratio, although it
goes as close as 1:2). There's no doubt in my mind that a specialized
macro lens like the 80/4.0 would outdo it, but then the 80/4.0 isn't as
versatile, either.
Yes, at macro distances and the inevitable shrinkage of the depth of field
zone, one has to be extra careful with lens steadiness, possibly even more
so than the care required for a 300/2.8!
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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 >
|