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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 28, 2010, 10:41 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
zig-123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts
Posts: 5,156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
All I can say is if the 50 f2 died, I'd have a replacement on order the same day.
One of the first lenses I bought after getting the E-500, was the 50mm 2.0 macro. It was every bit as good as I had read about. Outstanding in every way. I sold it sometime back to fund the purchase of the 50-200mm lens. While I didn't regret getting the 50-200mm -as it too is an outstanding lens in it's own right, I surely do miss having the 50mm macro.

One of these days, I'll get another.

Zig
zig-123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2010, 2:16 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Chappell View Post
These show why people who like to do macro work opt to buy a lens like this. They are on another level compared to adapting non-macro lenses with extension tubes.The detail on such tiny creatures is amazing. The 50mm f2 looks to be worth every penny of what it costs.
Yeah from what I've seen it is, but it's not really an either/or sort of thing. Most people that I know using old glass for macro use macro lenses on extension tubes, which is how they were meant to be used in the days of film. The real beauty of the setup Greg has is that if he takes the 250D off he has a 1:1 lens that is not only razor sharp but at a comfortable working distance. As much as I love my old glass i don't have anything that would do that, at least not with anything near the sharpness.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 29, 2010, 6:42 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
Yeah from what I've seen it is, but it's not really an either/or sort of thing. Most people that I know using old glass for macro use macro lenses on extension tubes, which is how they were meant to be used in the days of film. The real beauty of the setup Greg has is that if he takes the 250D off he has a 1:1 lens that is not only razor sharp but at a comfortable working distance. As much as I love my old glass i don't have anything that would do that, at least not with anything near the sharpness.

John
This is how I see the lens:

The BAD:

The 50 macro has one evil. It has such a long focus travel and it takes a long time to rack through that travel if it fails to catch focus the first time through. It would be a much better general lens if it had a limiter. That is all the bad I have to say about it.

The GOOD:

The lens out resolves the sensor by such a margin that you can hang teleconverters, close up lenses, and push apertures to extremes and still have very sharp results, and the contrast just seems like it never gets lost. Its almost like its magic and gets a pass on the laws of physics. I have some very nice glass, but only the 50 macro has this characteristic. Its simply amazing.

I've never noticed CA, or vignetting, or any other evil. Its as close as I've seen to perfect.

Go to this site:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/35/cat/all

and go to the blur graph. Slide the aperture to f22 and look at the results. Keep in mind that 4/3 is two stops WORSE as far as diffraction softening than 35mm. I'm convinced.... The thing is magic.
__________________
Greg

https://dogsportphoto.smugmug.com/
fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 30, 2010, 2:12 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fldspringer View Post
This is how I see the lens:

The BAD:

The 50 macro has one evil. It has such a long focus travel and it takes a long time to rack through that travel if it fails to catch focus the first time through. It would be a much better general lens if it had a limiter. That is all the bad I have to say about it.

The GOOD:

The lens out resolves the sensor by such a margin that you can hang teleconverters, close up lenses, and push apertures to extremes and still have very sharp results, and the contrast just seems like it never gets lost. Its almost like its magic and gets a pass on the laws of physics. I have some very nice glass, but only the 50 macro has this characteristic. Its simply amazing.

I've never noticed CA, or vignetting, or any other evil. Its as close as I've seen to perfect.

Go to this site:

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/35/cat/all

and go to the blur graph. Slide the aperture to f22 and look at the results. Keep in mind that 4/3 is two stops WORSE as far as diffraction softening than 35mm. I'm convinced.... The thing is magic.
You might be right, maybe it is magic. Or maybe Oly just really knows how to make lenses after all these years Now if only they could make them cheaper.
John
jelow1966 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 12:21 PM.