Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Blue in Gold

Subject: Re: [OM] Blue in Gold
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2017 22:38:24 -0700
On 4/21/2017 2:14 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Excellent.  I like III best as well.  When viewed at 100% might have used one 
more  slice distally.

Nope. First slice is forward focused beyond any part of the flower. Second, probably also, although close. Third is the first to contribute to the stack. I've been fooled before.

Agree in you other post about the lack of utility of the in cam stacking--8 
slices is OK for most but end up with a jpeg.  I don't know if they updated the 
firmware of late but it was also limited to 3 lenses at launch..  I think it 
includes the 60 macro that you have.

I said 3-4 to allow for possibility that it works with the new 12-100. Easier to type than that research, esp. as I don't care. Yup, the 60/2.8 is one of them.

The 5T seems to  work admirably with that zoom.

I think the standard may end up T132 on 100-400 and 5T on 12-60. Slightly stronger diopter on shorter lens makes optical sense. And the sizes work well. The 5T is the same 62 mm thread size as the 12-60, but requires a 62=>72 mm adapter on the 100-400. Doesn't vignette, though. Then the T132 is 67 mm so requires less adapter up to 72 mm.

Remember, I'm always thinking about use in the field, where grabbing something already fitted, with magnetic attachment, using, then dropping back in the pouch is all I am willing to do. Fussing with various lenses and adapters is to do at home and try out.

I would be the 60macro would outperform that combo, but may not be a meaningful 
difference.

You know, I just didn't think of it. I guess I've got out of the habit. So much of my recent C-U/macro work lately has been at longer FLs, and the 60/2.8 is in a separate extra lens and accessory bag. Saw the light, grabbed what was at hand. Can't say I'm disappointed in the results.

It might be an interesting comparison, but I'd need at least a different light source that doesn't keep moving and changing. From a field perspective, the 12-xx(x) is on the camera, the C-U lenses in a belt pouch, so that's the quickest, easiest way to go. Did I say the results are OK?? :-D

Your gear and techniques have evolved rapidly.

I do hope to keep at least getting different, mostly perhaps better. :-)

These are hand held brackets?

Tripod. I could grab one as I passed by with camera. Like umbrellas by a front door, there are tripods in a holder at the door out of my lair.

How do you like the PL 12-60 vs  Z. 12-100?

A tough question. Can I have a 12-100 the size and weight of the 12-60?* ;-)

At the moment, the 12-100 is on the bench, not for bad behavior, but so I can find out how it works for me with 12-60 and 100-400 in the field. Handling is much nicer than the 12-100. So far, on yesterday's outing in MarinOma, it worked pretty well. Also, not a big factor, but Oly and Panny zoom rings work in opposite directions.

No sign of the UV issue?

Certainly nothing obvious in usual 100% peeping, but I haven't been looking for it. To be honest, I've put off any testing with targets. Lazy? Don't want to know? Truth is, I got along well with the 12-50 for years, was happy with many, many images from it, and both of these new lenses are considerably better.

So maybe choosing based on how I get along with them and how I like practical 
image results isn't so bad an idea. :-)

Experiential Moose


* I won't even think about a 75-400. I wouldn't want to do anything to mess up 
the 100-400.

--
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