> 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.
I maintain the normal marketing usage of the term "Macro" means that
the lens will go down to 1:2 on it's own and is designed to go 1:1
with additional extension tube. But not only that, but the lens is
optimized in design to perform well down to 1:1. As such, these are
macro lenses.
There are those among us who hold to an absolute definition that macro
means 1:1 without assistance. Yeah, whatever. A lens designed to go to
1:1 without loss of focal length would be huge as compared to a 1:2
lens. The reason is simple: You've got to stuff the helicoid
someplace.
Tomorrow night we'll get to test the 100/2, 90/2, 50/3.5, 50/1.4,
50/1.8 and the 100/2.8 at "macro" or "near-macro" distances. Joel will
just have to pick a restaurant that has gizmos to photograph.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|