Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] What is a macro, and what's in it? [was OM-5D macro comparisons

Subject: Re: [OM] What is a macro, and what's in it? [was OM-5D macro comparisons]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:18:28 -0800
On 1/31/2012 6:04 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012, at 02:59 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>> First, let me say that this is not a macro comparison.
> Sure it is.  Zuikos 50/3.5 and 90/2, Nikk*r 55/2.8 -- all considered by
> earthlings to be macro lenses.


Let me restate: It is not a comparison of macro performance. It is a comparison 
of lenses designed to perform well from 
infinity to 1:2 at a non-macro magnification.

I got too wordy. Let me instead ask a question. If these tests were accurate 
representations of lenses you could use, 
which would you choose for non-macro use?

Distortion = none                  | Distortion = very slight pincushion  | 
Distortion = none
Aperture  Center  Corner  Contrast | Aperture  Center  Corner  Contrast   | 
Aperture  Center  Corner  Contrast
f/2         A-       B     High    |                                      |  
f/2        B+      A-     High
f/2.8       A        A-    High    |                                      |  
f/2.8      A-      B+     High
f/4         A        A     High    |  f/3.5      B-       C    Mod. High  |  
f/4        B+      B      V. high
f/5.6       A        A-    High    |  f/5.6      A        A    Mod. High  |  
f/5.6      A-      B+     V. high
f/8         A-       A-    High    |  f/8        A+       A    High       |  
f/8        A-      A-     Ex.high
f/11        A-       A-    High    |  f/11       A        A    Mod. High  |  
f/11       A-      B+     V. high
f/16        B+       B+    High    |  f/16       A-       A-   Mod. High  |  
f/16       A-      B-     High

It's obvious what lens is in the second column, the others perhaps less so. 
Assuming this was paired comparisons, I 
would go for column one for digital, as I can easily control contrast in post, 
but would prefer less in the capture, to 
avoid clipped ends of the histogram. So I'd go for resolution over contrast.

<big snips>

> As you said, lens design is a series of compromises. The Z90 has its 
> compensations even if you can't skin a raccoon with it.  A Tamron 90/2.8 in 
> an EF mount, however, is on my short list if Canaan FF ever starts to grow on 
> me. :)

It's a very nice lens in many ways. Relatively light for what it is. The 
push-pull MF-AF switching is nice, although not 
as nice as the Canon full time AF-MF lenses. A better field lens than studio 
macro lens, in a way. It is actually 
sharper at f2.8 than f8 at 1:2, which means some interesting choices between 
sharpness and DOF

Macro Argumentation Moose

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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