Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Legacy lens for copy work

Subject: Re: [OM] Legacy lens for copy work
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:06:32 -0800
On 12/20/2015 11:59 AM, Rick Beckrich wrote:
+3 for the 50/3.5 macro.

I guess I could remove tongue from cheek and comment a bit further. I did a pretty careful comparison of some MF macro lenses in 2006:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6/21/2006 6:04 PM, Moose wrote:
I'm generally happy with the AF lenses I have for the 5D.

For close focus and macro, I don't yet have a plan/solution that I'm happy with. The 28-300, do everything, lens I use most actually goes to 1:3 at the long end, which is sort of amazing, but not enough for many shots I want to take.

So I've done a little testing. I wanted to see how much I could get away without carrying extra lenses, since I have some achromatic, two element close-up lenses. I also tried some true macros, both against each other and as comparisons with what I could do with the other solution. I set up the copy stand, put the back of a book with some sharp looking print on it and started taking pictures.

The tests that should be of interest here are of the Zuiko 50/3.5, Tamron SP 
90/2.5 and Kiron 1002.8.

Ever since the Can*n full frame DSLRs came out, people have been saying that they really show up any flaws in lenses, separating good from ok from bad lenses.

Well, there is one lens that passes the 5D test with flying colors, the Zuiko 50/3.5. So far, I've only really looked at 1:2 at f8. The Tamron and Kiron are both very good, sharp and clear in the middle, showing the little flaws in the print and the texture of the paper. At the edges, they are still pretty darn good, but a little less detail is clear and there is some vignetting, even at f8.

The 50/3.5 is just amazing. Clean, sharp, laser etched looking edges of the ink, clear definition of individual paper fibers that have wicked ink and were hinted at, but not clear, on the other lenses and the detail of the paper is clearer. Where the others show texture, it shows fiber detail. At the edges? Maybe a tiny bit less sharp, but not much, still very sharp and clear and no vignetting. In the center, you could say the others are in the running, at the edges, they really drop back.

I always knew this was a good lens, having used it for copy work for years, but the extra demands of the FF digital just make it stand out more. WOW!

It's still not the ideal for everything. The lens to subject distance is a problem off the copy stand and it's prone to pretty bad bokeh. And for nature shots, the corners seldom matter anyway.

I haven't even tried it with 25 mm tube for 1:1, because the subject distance will just be too small for what I'm looking for. Now that I've seen what it does at 1:2, I may try 1:1 just for fun.

As for a pick between the Kiron and Tamron, their images are subtly different, but essentially a dead heat for this test. The Tamron is lighter and smaller, but requires a tube to go past 1:2. The Kiron is bigger and heavier and goes directly to 1:1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/1/2006 4:46 PM, Moose wrote:
I've done some more macro lens testing on the 5D. Added to my stable of OM mount macro lenses is a Tamron SP 90/2.8 Di in EF mount.

Quick summary, 'cause I don't have the sticktoitiveness to do all the details:

The Zuiko 50/3.5 @ f8 is still the 1:2 winner, but not by as much as before. The 90/2.8 Di @ f2.8 is very close. It has significant vignetting, but is very sharp edge to edge. At f8, the vignetting is essentially gone, but it isn't as sharp as at f2.8.

At 1:1, the Di @f2.8 is the clear winner, with the Zuiko fading at the higher magnification, still very good, but not the very best.

As with contemporary zoom designs, the Di shines wide open, with f2.8 actually its optimum aperture for sharpness at 1:2 and 1:1, although f4 is pretty close at 1:2.

I also compared the new f2.8 Di design Tamron SP with the much older f2.5 MF design. The newer design beats the older one across the tests I did, but not by much; the difference is pretty small, in general. Like the Di, the f2.5 likes to be a bit open at 1:1, with f4 being better than f8. Of course, the Di focuses directly from infinity to 1:1, while the old one needs an extension tube to get to 1:1, as does the Zuiko.

All the f-stops noted are lens settings, not effective apertures, which get 
slower as magnification increases.

Self Citing 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