billsnature wrote:
The Nikon at $250-275, with a much smaller size and weight and close but not quite as good in image quality. Still way better than any zoom, or any Olympus lens out there, but just slightly off the Zeiss.
Hi Bill,
Did you test your Nikon against Oly? Which lenses?
I am not a big Oly fan. I have owned at one time or another the 18mm, the 21mm both 2.0 and 3.5, the 24 f2.8 and 28mm f2.8. All are reasonably sharp, and many have excellent corners. I just really don't like the color and contrast curves. Very "egg shell' tint that give an the old artistic look if that is what you are into. They are probably great for B&W, but for color I like the Contax Zeiss, Leica or even CV colors /curves better.
I am sure it could be tweaked in post process, just not my thing.
Out of curiuosity do you use the Contax 60mm C much? I really regret having sold it now that I am out of M4/3rds and into Nex. If you ever want to dump it I would be glad to buy it back.
inglis wrote:
Thanks for the clarification Mawz
I have a CY 35-70 3.4, which goes down to 1:2.5, which is why I am interested in a macro like lens shorter than 35mm. I wonder how the E 30/3.5 Macro would do since they are close to the same f stop wide open. Maybe I should consider the E 30/3.5 since it is wider and goes to 1:1. I want something to use on medieval ivory reliefs in museums. I wonder how it does contrast wise when compared with the CY. Looks like pretty close focus, so might not work through museum glass cases.
Your other option for approaching macro is any m-mount wide angle paired with the Hawk's adapter. Don't know the precise magnification, but it allows me to focus my CV 15 down to about 4-5 inches, for example. The corners suffer a bit, so I wouldn't use it for flat-field macro work, but it might work well for your needs.
I am not a big Oly fan. I have owned at one time or another the 18mm, the 21mm both 2.0 and 3.5, the 24 f2.8 and 28mm f2.8. All are reasonably sharp, and many have excellent corners. I just really don't like the color and contrast curves. Very "egg shell' tint that give an the old artistic look if that is what you are into. They are probably great for B&W, but for color I like the Contax Zeiss, Leica or even CV colors /curves better.
I am sure it could be tweaked in post process, just not my thing.
Out of curiuosity do you use the Contax 60mm C much? I really regret having sold it now that I am out of M4/3rds and into Nex. If you ever want to dump it I would be glad to buy it back.
I do not use the 60C much, let me think about it, and I will definitely let you know first. It's hard to make a decision this time of year, when there's not much macro shooting to do anyway.
alwang wrote:
Your other option for approaching macro is any m-mount wide angle paired with the Hawk's adapter.
+1 on this for the NEX. Be careful though - it may be that some Hawk adapters, or some lenses + Hawk adapters, don't allow the lens to hit infinity.
But for greatly reducing the minimum focus distance... the Hawk is excellent. My ZM25 is my closest focusing M lens at 0.5 meters; the Hawk brought that MFD down to about 0.06 meters, 6cm, roughly three finger widths in front of my lens. Being a helicoid adapter the reduction is variable according to your needs.
This one capability - reduction of MFD if not full on macro - is the thing I most miss about NEX now that I'm shooting Ricoh GXR with my M lenses.
michaelwatkins wrote:
This one capability - reduction of MFD if not full on macro - is the thing I most miss about NEX now that I'm shooting Ricoh GXR with my M lenses.
yeah, this is the big thing keeping with the NEX right now. if ricoh put something similar on their upcoming 16mp m-mount module, i'd be much more tempted to switch.
Mine was ordered from a dealer who has it on order with Leica since last March, and still no delivery date. There are some in stock in German stores, though...
