Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Having 90/2, should I buy 50/3,5?

Subject: [OM] Having 90/2, should I buy 50/3,5?
From: orava@xxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:13:20 +0200 (EET)

Dear Zuikoholics,

Zuikoholism is bothering me again. I have 90/2 that I use very much for macro 
shots with 4Ti and with E-1. I have began to play with an idea of buying 50/3,5 
macro. They are quite cheap. I am just curious that do I really NEED that 
50/3,5? 

I have understood that in macro photography the depth of field is not dependent 
on the focal lenth, but on the magnification. Therefore there is no NEED for me 
to buy a shorter macro lens. But the angle of view does change according to 
focal length even for macro shots (am I right?). Therefore I might have some 
use for a 50/3,5. 

I really would like to see an example of what does the angle of view look like 
for these two lenses (if the photos are taken of the same subject). Does anyone 
have some examples to share? Is there any difference in perspective?

What about sharpness and contrast? Is 90/2 so superior to 50/3,5 that I 
shouldn't even consider it? I bet that the difference is not that huge...


Best regards,

Olli

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz