DavidBM Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Luvwine wrote:
As I think about this, for the vast majority of my shots, a diopter would not be worth the hassle. If shooting at minimum focusing distance, I would just change lenses to say the CV 65/2. Perhaps I am missing something to be gained here, so happy to learn why the hassle of adding a diopter has advantages. I get that it is smaller and lighter than carrying a second lens, but how often is this going to be that useful?
Whether it’s worth the hassle is entirely personal. And we don’t even know yet exactly what performance gains there are ( my tests so far are only on centre).
But if you want a 40mm perepctive for some image, and you want to focus around a metre or closer, and you want to use a wide aperture, then it seems you’ll get very visible (not merely measurable) boosts in contrast and sharpness at least centrally.
Certainly if you have a normal macro with you, and you want a 50-60 perspective, that’s a better choice at these distances. But you won’t always have one with you (I usually use the 40 as a sole walk around, and if I take something else it would be a lot wider or shorter) and if you do you might not want that perspective for a certain shot. In which case an inexpensive filter you can just screw on might improve things. I use this lens at around 1m realyy quite often. Worth the hassle? Doesn’t seem that much hassle to me, but that’s an entirely personal trade off.
|