At 11:41 3/23/02, Paul wrote:
If I were to purchase 1 macro lens, which should it be? I have never done
any macro-photography, but think I would like to try.
I would mainly be using it to photograph insects that frequent my fly
fishing haunts. Thanks in advance.
Starter for field use: 85/2 plus complete auto extension tube set.
At minimum focus distance on the lens, the OM set (7+14+25 = 56mm) gets you
to about 2/3 life-size on film; the Vivitar AT-21 set (12+20+36 = 68mm)
should get you to life-size, or very nearly so (~80mm total extension
including focus helical). Unless you're doing it for photometric purposes,
exact magnification isn't that important and it's exceedingly difficult to
achieve with wildlife in the field. The 85mm length allows more stand-off
than a 50mm does. Aside from startling wildlife getting too close, there's
also a light issue getting too close with too short a focal length.
Overshadowed by the 90/2 Macro and 100/2 Telephoto, the 85/2 is a forgotten
length among the Zuiko's, very compact including a 49mm filter ring, and
can be found more often at much lower prices. The AT-21 set is very
inexpensive used; less than the price of a single OM auto-tube.
The tubes are expansible with macro work. Use them with your standard 50mm
and later add a 135/2.8 (also a forgotten Zuiko found more often at lower
prices) for varying stand-off distances and maximum magnifications.
Notes about using 135's with tubes:
IMO the 135/2.8 is a better companion with extension tubes than the
2/3-stop slower 135/3.5 due to the overall light falloff that occurs with
macro extensions. Not that one would shoot wide open; normally never in
the field. It's the noticeably brighter viewfinder with the faster lens
that helps set critical focus much easier.
-- John
< 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 >
|