The 80mm has better maginifaction (up to 1:2 with
close up lens) while the 135 has focus at infinity and
better stand off range. If you are shooting handheld
macro the 135 would be a better choice. The bellows
should only be used on a stage or tripod, it would be
a beast to handhold. The 65-116 extension tube is
light, compact, and easy to handhold. The bellows has
a better range of movement and stuff, but is
restricted to tripod, thge extension tube is better
for handheld and field macro of fast moving ojccts
that can't be pinned down. The bellows also can get
damaged and let in stray light, the tube can't unless
it gets FUBAR.
Mark Lloyd
--- John Duggan <john.duggan1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi all,
> After recent comments regarding the Olympus
> 80mm Macro and 135 Macro
> , Which would be the listmembers choice. I have a
> 50mm f3.5 and Tamron 90mm
> f2.5 sp. As I am thinking more of natural history
> type shots my gut feeling
> is that the greater "stand off" distance of the
> 135mm would be useful.
> I already own the variable extension tube....How
> does this compare in
> the field to bellows?
> I would be very interested to have members
> opinions.
> Regards, John Duggan, Wales
> UK.
>
>
> < 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 >
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.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 >
|