2016-11-14 6:31 GMT+01:00 Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On 11/12/2016 10:18 PM, Dharma Singh wrote:
>
>> Stinging Moose,
>>
>> There's always a lot of discussion in general of what is exactly close-up
>> photography, macro photography and micro photography.
>>
>
> It's all Nikon's fault. ;-) They mislabeled their 55 mm macro lens as a
> "Micro Nikkor", back in the mists of time. I just finally sold mine
> recently.
> Seems to me that the line between C-U and macro is 1:2, macro and micro is
> 1:1, or at least used to be, for 35 mm film. But even that is troublesome
> now. A 4/3 sensor @ 1:2 covers the same subject area as FF @ 1:1. If both
> are print/displayed at the same size and resolution, the subject will be be
> the same size.
>
> I'm not going into that, but some are using the 40-150mm pro as a 'macro'
>> lens, because you can quite close to your object.
>>
>
> And that's where definitions get fuzzy. That lens goes to 1:4.8, so no,
> not macro, by traditional definition. But then, in use, it acts like a lens
> on FF that goes to 1:2.4, and that feels, in use, a lot like old MF macros.
>
> And then, quite a few MF zooms claimed a Macro Mode, typically to 1:4, and
> the 40-150/2.8 would definitely feel like it gets closer than that.
>
> Put an extension tube or a small + diopter achromat C-U lens on it, and it
> definitely goes macro. I've made some quite good macro shots with a few M.Z
> lenses using extension tubes. I know I used the 14-150, too, but it doesn't
> appear in my web gallery. <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main
> .php?g2_itemId=4514>
>
Nicely put!
>
>
>> I own a lot of macro lenses, OM, OM bellows, E-system, and now the two µ43
>> lenses.
>>
>
> 50/3.5 (2), *only 1*
135/4.5, *yes*
>
80/4 Auto,*yes*
>
Tamron 90/2.5 (matching extender and 2x converter), *no, but Tamron
500mm *macro
> 1:3 [hm...]
>
Kiron 105/2.8, *yes*
>
Auto Bellows (2), *3, but I have to sell a few*
>
Telescopic Auto Tube 65-116. n*ot anymore, sold.*
I've also had the OM 90/2, which was poor at actual macro magnifications, no
and the Tamron 90/2.8 AF, which was excellent, in EOS mount. *no*
And now the M.Z 60/2.8, and 12-50 in Macro Mode. I have to admit to my
lazy habits; if the 12-50 gets close enough, the 60/2.8 doesn't come out,
and the 12-50 gets over ten times the calls.
I really forgot about the 12-50mm, I own it, bought it togehter with the
first E-M5, but didn't take more than 10 pictures with it I think, nice
electric zoom, should sell but comes very cheap 2nd hand.
Also have a lot of automatic and non automatic OM extension tubes and some
Oly c-u lenses.
4/3rd 35mm and 50mm
>
> By the way and not in the least I like your photographs very much.
>>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|