Spent 3 months in Morro Bay California last winter. Great place, close to Montana De Oro and Paso Robles wine country. Of course the Ocean and all the gifts that come with it. A couple of shots with the 35 F2.8 on a 60D.
Scrolling through the images in this thread I'm positively surprised by the pictures from the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8: great portrait, twoeye, and I like the flower picture a lot, bkwphoto!
Ulff that last shot, looks like a coneflower, gorgeous high key and delicate details in the flower.
Bifurcator my eyes are bleeding from the first shot, girls and bikes.
*** I own it or have owned it, tested it, and it rocks!
++ I own it or have owned it, tested it, and it's good!
Just quickly looking at ebay's prices." end of quote:
I see what your saying about the macro lens does this apply to the whole f2 series 24f2 28f2 etc. Are there any standouts in the olympus f2 line that justify their expense? I see keh has a 250 f2 coming in, not that I could afford one, of course no price listed yet. Just curious!
BKW, Beats me. I just read the question about if it was worth it and then started looking up the prices of other macro lenses.
The OM is a 2.0 but this is macro. Most macro guys are bummed that their lenses have diffraction limitations. It's pretty much the hope of every macro user to stop it down as far as possible all of the time. So IMO (and I guess the opinion of most macro shooters) anything below about 4.0 is just wasted. If it's higher speed that's wanted the OM 50/1.4 can be had for like $50 to $75 for example, and its hella sharp from 1.8 on. So while some might argue hay, it's a f/2.0!!! I don't think that matters. When one also considers that speed is usually associated with weight and size it's a lose lose all around IMO.
In the same breath I haven't owned the OM 50mm F/2.0 Macro (1:2) so it very well may be that it kicks ass on all of the lenses I listed - although that would be quite a feat as some of those above are just phenomenal and a half.
<shrug>
In the end I guess if you can find one of those unmatchable "deals" that happen every so often you should go for it but at it's current standard price... Hmmm, why?
I have a few normal macros, a Yashica ML 55/2.8, FD SSC 50.3.5, Rokkor MC 50/3.5.
All 3 are nice and sharp, I really like that the Yasica is f2.8 I the extra speed lets me use the lens for more than just macro.
I'd like to try some Oly macros but their prices are more than I would like to spend.
Bifurcator wrote:
...The OM is a 2.0 but this is macro. Most macro guys are bummed that their lenses have diffraction limitations. It's pretty much the hope of every macro user to stop it down as far as possible all of the time. So IMO (and I guess the opinion of most macro shooters) anything below about 4.0 is just wasted. If it's higher speed that's wanted the OM 50/1.4 can be had for like $50 to $75 for example, and its hella sharp from 1.8 on. So while some might argue hay, it's a f/2.0!!! I don't think that matters. When one also considers that speed is usually associated with weight and size it's a lose lose all around IMO.......Show more →
Your assuming that the only reason one would use a macro lens is for maximum depth of field, ie such as when focus stacked or massively stopped down. This is simply not the case as macros are used for pictorial reasons as much as anything else. It's not always about achieving maximum depth of field or technical perfection.
I use an ML55/2.8 usually wide open (but I do double up with an F8 shot because there is often a technical reason to do so). If I had an F2 macro I would regularly use it wo, indubitably.
JohnJ wrote:
Your assuming that the only reason one would use a macro lens is for maximum depth of field, ie such as when focus stacked or massively stopped down. This is simply not the case as macros are used for pictorial reasons as much as anything else. It's not always about achieving maximum depth of field or technical perfection.
I use an ML55/2.8 usually wide open (but I do double up with an F8 shot because there is often a technical reason to do so). If I had an F2 macro I would regularly use it wo, indubitably.
+1
I use both my macros (Zuiko 50 2.0 + Zeiss 100 2.0) mostly wide open (at least in macro shots of flowers). The above images with the 50 2.0 are all done wide open. Stopped down they would have looked different and not to their advantage IMO. I used to have slower macros in the past and I didn't use them for non-macro shots because they were too slow for me. F2.0 lenses are perfect although to use them in low light and for portrait for example. They are two lenses in one and that's a big advantage for actually using them. Furthermore, the Zuiko 50 2.0 is the sharpest 50mm lens at f2.0 I ever had and I tried a lot of them.
For all the shots you guys are talking about there are f/1.4 lenses that close focus available for $50 to $100 and are much better suited for those tasks - especially on µ4/3 where you also have a selection of 30 or 40 such inexpensive lenses - many of which are hella-sharp at f/2.0!. When you get down to between 1:6 and 1:1 reproduction ratios no one human can tell the difference between 2.0 and 3.5 - which is the slowest one I listed above. With some of the others we're talking about the difference is between f/2.5 and f/2.0 . And it's pretty rare that anyone would want to shoot at those magnifications near to it's widest apertures - it happens but it's rare!
So yes, I'm assuming quite a few things all of which seem only to be common sense.
Wanna take macro shots - get a macro lens.
Most (all?) macro shots need to be stopped down to see anything almost at all. The DOF at those magnifications is just too narrow!
There is no humanly detectable difference between 2.0 and 3.5 at macro magnifications - let alone between f/2.0 and f/2.5...
For portraits or flower shots like above there are way better options available without having to spend an extra $400 on a macro lens that opens (only) to f/2.0
Most macro fanatics know that the hobby requires a good command and understanding of light, lighting equipment, and technique - the difference between 2.0 and 3.5 isn't hardly going to save anyone ever. And for sure never between 2.0 and 2.5 - etc.
The Zeiss 100 2.0 is a bit of a different story as it produces images at normal and far distance focusing which are quite unique with only a few other lenses capable of the same. In that case the person might want it specifically. And also 2.0 is quite fast for any 100mm lens - macro or not - whereas f/2.0 on a 50/55/58mm lens is pretty darn slow and not worthy - again, macro or not.
But that's just how I see it. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything. I do like sharing my thoughts on a topic tho.
So here you can see the non-macro Olympus OM Zuiko 50/1.4 with only a slight crop and not yet to it's minimum focusing distance either:
1/500s, f/8.0 or f/11, ISO 100, GH1, Reproduction Ratio: Between 1:12 and 1:15, - processed of course.
rbn920 wrote:
Bifurcator you must be a manual focus master! Nice work locking onto those birds on page 1.
Thanks! However, if we think back to the time before AF existed there were plenty of awesome BIF shots. So both in theory as well as in practice I've found, it doesn't take much mastery.
I bet most AF systems would miss most of those shots anyway so even the AF guys would likely be turning to MF to get some of those.
i got myself a zuiko 28 2.8 last week and soonafter bought an adapter for my 5dII.
here are my first shots with it on the canon. i have to say, i expected focussing to be more difficult without any special kind of screen and with no focus confirmation but surprisingly it is quite easy
So while some might argue hay, it's a f/2.0!!! I don't think that matters. When one also considers that speed is usually associated with weight and size it's a lose lose all around IMO.
. And it's pretty rare that anyone would want to shoot at those magnifications near to it's widest apertures - it happens but it's rare!
