On 4/10/2010 6:47 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Moose"<olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> I was just sooo disappointed in the 90/2 that I had for close-up. Not awful,
>> just so-so when I was expecting a lot.
> You really expecting a lot from it, to me the close-up quality is good, at
> least average for a 90mm macro. Here is a ~1:3 (?) shot at F2.8, not bad to
> my eyes.
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5157.JPG (ISO 800, sharpness=1, NR=0)
>
That's very nice. I don't think mine was that sharp close-up. It's been
a few years now, so it's hard to be sure. I don't care enough to go back
looking for old images.
I never carefully tested it against my other macro lenses. I had already
sold it by the time I bought the Tamron 90/2.8 AF in Canon mount. I do
remember doing a lot of close-up/macro work in nature at the time and
finding that it just didn't measure up to the Tamron 90/2.5 or Kiron
105/2.8 on the same sort of subjects. Maybe in reality, it wasn't much
worse, maybe even no worse (nah), but I paid a lot more money for this
legendary lens, so it should be better, no?
In careful 1:2 and 1:1 tests on a copy stand, the new Tamron on 5D
clearly was better than anything I had but the 50/3.5 @ 1:2, where it
was a tie, to my eye, although the two IQs were a little different from
each other. I didn't have the 80/4 at that time, but it's really a
different sort of lens, not suited to full range use from infinity to 1:2.
> Its excellent corner to corner performance for distance object is difficult
> to find among the OM Zuikos I have, great for demanding landscape.
>
As you can see, I didn't limit myself to Zuikos. :-) The truth is that
I have mostly used zooms for landscapes since I got the 35-70/3.6 in the
'70s, so over 30 years. I did for part of the time with the 35-70 have a
Vivitar 28mm prime, but used it sparingly. I believe all my 90-105 mm
macros to be excellent at infinity, but have done no careful testing.
The only time I think views like you have from high up in HK would be
good is for non-close-up lens comparisons. I would have to go to
considerable trouble to find such great lens test subjects where I live.
>> My lens for family events for many years was the 35-70/3.6. I used it on a
>> 2n, with OTF flash indoors or under trees, and was very happy.
> The zoom is more versatile but you know fix lenses just feel much better and
> peoples are more respected to the image produce from fix lenses :-)
>
We each need to know and work within our own limitations. Just as the
camera left at home, no matter how wonderful, isn't as good as the one
carried, the lens left in the bag isn't as good as the one on the
camera. Very occasionally, I set out to photograph with a bag of prime
lenses and a good tripod, work slowly and choose the lens for the shot.
My personal experience is that doing that gets in the way of my
photography. I get too involved in the equipment and don't find as
appealing, to me, subjects and compositions. The majority of my images
happen away from home while walking in nature, usually with one or more
other people. But to tell the truth, even when by myself, I tend to see
the shot, take it fairly quickly, and move on.
This might be a problem if I were trying to make a living as a pro
nature/landscape photographer. As an amateur, shooting mostly to please
myself and to some extent those I know personally, it works. Because I
notice and want to photograph everything from the tiny to the very wide
to the very distant, often all within a few moments, I find zooms to be
much more transparent to me. That is, they don't get in the way, while
primes do.
It may be a little like viewfinders. Obviously, lots of folks here find
a great deal of difference in (D)SLR viewfinders. If I hold the "tunnel
vision, dim, mirror prism" 300D in one hand and an OM-1 in the other, I
can see that there is a huge difference in the view through them. but
when I used the 300D in the field, I simply didn't notice. I looked
through the finder and saw the subject. It was transparent to me, as I
didn't notice it getting in the way. Primes aren't transparent to me.
I know it makes me less than perfect ;-) , but I just don't much like
changing lenses. Even with just 17-35, 28-300 and 90mm macro, I
sometimes make do with 28 mm, when wider might be better, or use the
nice close-up capability of the 28-300 at the long end, rather than
switch to the true macro lens. When the wind is blowing, the spray is
flying, and/or there is a lot more to see just down the trail, I just
want to capture my image and move on.
I suppose I'm odd. I'll stand in cold, damp wind, freezing while I wait
for the perfect wave, for the bird to turn its head just right, for a
nice bird to fly across the sunset, and so on, but resent having to
shield the camera in my coat and unzip a bag to change lenses. Oh well. ;-)
I am also finding myself carrying a small camera, recently the G11, on
my belt and using it for macro in many cases, rather than the 90/2.8 on
5D. Although pixel peeping IQ even at ISO 80 isn't up to the 5D, the
greater DOF makes for better overall IQ for many flowers and similar
subjects at reasonable viewing sizes.
Although I pixel peep to compare sensor systems and lenses, which makes
sense to me, I also take into consideration whether they would be
practical in my use. The big, pro 1D series and Nikon equivalents or MF
equipment may be the best there is, but I know I simply wouldn't be
carrying them, so what good would they be for me?
In practice, I and others mostly see my images on an 11.3x18.5" computer
screen or an 8.5x11 print. Sure, I have the capability and the paper to
print up to 13x19, but I almost never do. And even at 13x19, at normal
viewing distances, the cameras and lenses I have are fully up to the job.
Many of the images from my less than perfect zooms just knock me out at
full computer screen size. I so much wish my distant friends could see
them that way instead as the smaller sizes that are practical on the web.
As long as Carol praises my images here at home and I get some positive
feedback her and from other distant friends on my web images, I'm doing
well.
> ...
>
>> The angle of view is like 100mm on FF, but the working distance is still
>> short. I really like the working distance of the Tamron 90/2.5 with 2x
>> converter. 180m is great and f5 stopped down a bit is fine for sunny days.
>>
>>
> More working distance is better but shorter lens is easier for handhold.
>
Is that really true? If the image size on screen or on paper is the
same, aren't DOF and the effects of camera movement the same either way?
I know we have the 1/focal length rule of thumb for shutter speed, but
that's because image from the wider lens won't be enlarged to the same
displayed subject size.
If I take a picture of a ruler with 50 mm and with 180 mm and/or with
4/3 and FF and print them all so the ruler is the same size in the
print, I think movement blur from my imperfection as a tripod is just
the same in all of the prints.
Or if you simply mean a smaller. lighter lens is easier to hold steady,
I can see that. In practice, I find the mostly plastic, and therefore
light, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro balances nicely on the 5D for me. I don't
think a smaller, lighter lens would make any practical difference, but
who knows?
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
