Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 15, 2009, 10:33 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Dangerous Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 140
Default Ez-25 with 50mm f2 or not

Hi Guys
Just a note to those who have the ex-25

Im wondering to purchase this for some macro photography. Now the big question is I have the 12-60mm swd and the 50-200mm swd, now would I be better to buy the 50mm f2 as well to get the full potential or are my lenses good enough with the extension tube added. I also like the 50mm idea as a potrait lense but how much better would it be than my current lenses.

if you have these two lenses and have and the 50mm do you still use the 50mm or does the other lenses jump to your hand 1st.


p.s. Some day I will own the 35-100mm would this then replace the 50mm for portrait? so would I best put the money aside and wait till I have the funds for the 35-100mm

Thankd Brian

E3, E330, 14-45mm, 12-60mm swd, 50-200mm swd, FL50, FL50R
Dangerous Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 15, 2009, 10:52 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,566
Default

hi Brian,
.............I suspect I know what most of the suggestions will be. SAVE for the 35-100 and hit the macros with the lenses you now have.
____
boBB
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2009, 1:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,521
Default

I'm with Bob on this. The EX25 turns the 50-200 in to a very versatile close-focusing lens. If you really want that 35-100 f2, the EX25 will save you $300 or so towards that purchase vs. buying the 50mm f2. There's nothing wrong with using the 50mm f2.8 end of the 50-200 for portraits, or even longer focal lengths from that lens to compress the background even further. No doubt...the 50mm f2 Zuiko is probably the sharpest Zuiko out there. It's just a matter of your priorities...how much real use you'll get out of it vs. being that much closer to the 35-100 f2.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2009, 1:37 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boBBrennan View Post
hi Brian,
.............I suspect I know what most of the suggestions will be. SAVE for the 35-100 and hit the macros with the lenses you now have.
____
boBB
I agree with what Bob says. Although, the 50mm 2.0 is a really sharp lens, the 50-200mm is, for the most part just as sharp. Plus, the 50-200mm is a lot more versatile being a zoom.

My primary lenses today are the 12-60mm SWD and the ED version of the 50-200mm lens. I use them both with the Ex-25 and am happy with the results. But then, I haven't done a ton of macro work. The only lens I feel I am missing is a good low-light performing lens for indoor sports and portrait work -the 35-100mm 2.0


Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2009, 3:22 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default Depends on how much macro.

I don't have the extention tube. I do have the 50 f2 and the 50-200SWD.

The 50-200 is my work horse. Its my most used lens by a factor of two. The 50 macro is my second most used lens, but it is almost exclusively used as a macro lens (in combo with the EC-14 and a Canon 250D closeup lens). The 50-200 is a sharp lens. At 75mm its razor sharp.

The 50 f2 burys it as you can throw converters on it, stop down well into double digits, and it is still as sharp as can be resolved by the sensor. The thing is a macro, however. The focus has a lot of travel and it doesn't always catch focus. When light gets dim, autofocus gets frustrating.

Also have the 35-100. Its a great lens. Its a heavy lens. While I do use the EC-14 with it, it does loose some contrast. Without the converter, it has a WOW factor. Its a load to carry long distances on the camera, but its output makes the effort worth it.

I guess what I'm saying is it depends on how much macro you will do. I love macro and my 50 f2 gets used alot.

Another option is the 35 macro. Its cost is a fraction of the 50, is extremely sharp, and is an excellent choice also. Lighting can be a problem at one to one, but at half life size (as far as the 50 goes) its very similar to its more expensive brother.

Greg

Last edited by fldspringer; Nov 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM.
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2009, 3:26 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Dangerous Brian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 140
Default

Thanks for the comments, I'll go ahead and buy the ex-25 and see what kind of macro images I Can achieve with them and then try and save for the 35-100mm but if a cheap 50mm on ebay appears I just might be tempted.

Thanks again guys

ps. please don't stop commenting if you have the 50mm tell me the advantages it may have over the other combinations. size being one of them.
Dangerous Brian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 18, 2009, 4:54 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
BinaryGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 25
Default

You've already gotten some great comments, but since you're ok with getting some more I thought I'd respond.

I have the 50mm, 35mm macro, 12-60mm, 50-200mm (ver 1), and the extension tube.

Succinctly the pros of the 50mm in my view:
  • Ridiculously sharp! Even across almost all f-stops with minimal quality differences.
  • Size of course
  • Weather proof compared with the 35mm macro
Some downsides I personally find:
  • Focus a little sluggish when shooting macros and generally for most work I've used it in manual focus to get what I really want.
  • Not a true 1:1 on it's own (it's 1:2), you need the ext-tube for that, but you need to move in REALLY close and lighting becomes an issue. Not with the less expensive 35mm macro, as it is true 1:1 without the tube, so you can be a bit further away from your subject (although the 35mm is not quite as sharp, but still very good).
  • Prime, so no zoom and I've occasionally switched to my 50-200mm for portraits, as I can lazily stand in one place and zoom in or out.
Personally I would say it is a easy lens to fall in love with, and I would recommend one if you can get your hands on it, as you say for a good deal on eBay.
__________________
Check out my photography series on YouTube!
My Website | My Blog | My YouTube Channel | My Photography
BinaryGraphite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2009, 11:08 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerous Brian View Post
Thanks for the comments, I'll go ahead and buy the ex-25 and see what kind of macro images I Can achieve with them and then try and save for the 35-100mm but if a cheap 50mm on ebay appears I just might be tempted.

Thanks again guys

ps. please don't stop commenting if you have the 50mm tell me the advantages it may have over the other combinations. size being one of them.
There is one thing to keep in mind. If you make a choice, either the extention tube or the 50 f2, you can expect a lion's share of your investment back if you decide to sell it.

F16 from the 50 f2/EC-14/Canon 250D



f20
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 PM.