Dean, for your specific use-case I can see the obvious superiority
of the automatic 38/2.8. However, I get the feeling you are recommending
that the 38/3.5 be discounted entirely - perhaps unfairly so?
For anybody wanting to shoot non-moving objects, the 38/3.5
is a very compelling little lens. It is much smaller and lighter than
the 2.8 version, it's basically just as sharp (both are almost
diffraction-limited at these magnifications anyway, i.e. for all
intents and purposes as "perfect" as a lens can be at these
magnifications), quite a bit cheaper, and for usage on non-OM
cameras, it's arguable that the manual lenses are better suited
(i.e.a lens designed for stop-down metering is better in this role
than a lens designed for automatic aperture, which usually has harsher
aperture click-stops, whereas a 38/3.5 smoothly glides open or shut
with minimum of disturbance to camera positions.)
If I were going to use either of these lenses on a digital camera,
for focus stacking etc. I would definitely myself prefer the smaller,
better-suited-to-manual-operation 38/3.5.
Anyway, this is just my opinion. Few people use these on OM cameras
these days, and the 38/3.5 is one phenomenal lens either way.
3.5 and 2.8 are basically equivalent in the filed in anyway, when it
comes
to exposure of depth or field.
Dawid
On 16 May 2010, at 4:45 PM, Dean Hansen wrote:
> I wouldn't bother with the 38mm/3.5 OM macro lens. One should put
> whatever money he'd spend on this non-automatic lens towards the
> far-more-useful 38/2.8 macro lens. OK, I was lucky--but I have picked
> up two LN 38/2.8s on our auction site for under $200 each. If someone
> just wants something to fiddle with, in a studio set-up, then the
> 38/3.5
> might be worth $50 with the adapter. But if you want to use a macro
> lens on insects or spiders in the field, save your money for the
> 38/2.8--there's no comparison. I'll be giving a talk on underwater
> macro photography at a major scientific meeting in Sante Fe in June,
> and
> the shots I've taken with the 38/2.8 will form a major part of the
> presentation. There's simply no way I could have used the older,
> non-automatic 38/3.5 to take the photos I'll be showing. No way.
> Pass
> on it.
> Dean
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|