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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 6, 2006, 1:49 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

The two lenses I am comparing are the
Olympus EP 50mm f2.0 1:2 Zuiko Macro E-1 Evolt Lens
and
OLYMPUS 35mm f3.5 Zuiko Digital Macro Lens

the first is in the $400-500 price range, the 2nd in the $200-300.

The first one says it has a min focussing distance of around 10", but how is that macro? I want to be able to get super close to something to take a macro shot, and 10" seems kinda far away from something. and what is the 1:2, does that mean what I take a shot of will be half the size of what it really is. I'm trying to find something that I can take the best macro close ups with, for a good price, (under $500) and was looking to get some clarification on the big differences of these two lenses, and how the 50mm is so much better :-).
sorry if this is a confusing post, but I am a newbie ...first post. take it easy on me guys . thanks
dapoopta is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 6, 2006, 4:19 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 134
Default

The first is f/2 and second f/3.5. That is two stops better.
mckennma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 4:34 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

that would be obvious from the descriptions i listed above. and how did you get 2 stops better from f2 to f3.5, would it not be 1.5? what type of benefits would the stops get me?
dapoopta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 6:41 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

The 50mmF2 is one of the highest tier, professional quality lenses made by Olympus. The "ED"suffix in the lens designates an element of extra low dispersion glass. The lens is one of their weather-sealed, dust proof, water proof lenses.

Yes, the close focus distance is about 10". But remember that the Olympus 4/3 system has a 2x multiplication factor on the focal length. So a 50mm lens in the 4/3 system is the equivalent of 100mm on a 35 mm camera. In other words, it's a medium telephoto. 10" with a telephoto lens is darn close.

Here's a picture that still has room to get closer (not a great photo but the inclusion of my fingers gives some scale):



Check out the thread lower down on this forum about the "Olympus Macro". I posted another picture from the 50mm F2 that shows a close up of an old dinky toy. And check the "Close Up" pictures on the "Post your Photos" forum and look for my "Little Mutant" thread where I posted a picture of 3.5" tall figure.

The 50mm Lens is designated as a 1:2 lens (although test actually measure it as 1: 1.6) which means it does not magnify as much as the 35mm lens. Not a big difference...but, yes, the 35mm does get closer. By all accounts, the 35mm is a very good lens and I think anybody would be very pleased with it. But the extra money for the 50mm is for the professional build quality, higher speed and ED glass.

Oh...F stops don't follow simple mathemtical progression so you can't just subtract the numbers to compare relative speed.
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 6:10 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 824
Default

As Brent noted, the 50mm is an ED lens, meaning it has special "Extra Dispersion" glass to help prevent CA and other color distortions. It's also built for dust and drip proofing, so it can be used to work around seriously wet environments.

Here's another couple of examples from the 50mm:






Norm in Fujino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 11:50 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

so, with the 50mm you can get closer than with the 35mm right? closer meaning larger zoom , like, in the end the picture you take will be closer up to the object than the 35mm can get? i want the best possible macro lens, and it seems to be a choice between these two. nice pictures btw, i hope to take a few like this.
Also, anyone know a good place to buy this lens? currently i was looking at b&h , its 425 and then 50 Mail in rebate. click camera has it for 499 locally, not sure if i wanna pay that much to buy it local. just incase something goes wrong you know... thanks again for your responses
dapoopta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 12:38 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 185
Default

No, the 35mm actually has higher magnification and can get in closer. For my purposes, I don't really find the difference in magnification that significant. The 35mm does 1:1 as I recall and the 50mm does 1.6:1. But that difference is only important when you are using the lens right at the brink of maximum magnification.

To a degree, you also have to ask yourself what kind of macro work you plan to do. I do a lot of "tabletop" work with objects arranged specifically for photography (as opposed to field work with plants and insects). For me, the 50mm focal length is a great help because it allows me to stay far enough away from the subject that I can position the lighting better. Since the lens is 10" away at closest focus, I can place lights in front of the subject and I have more flexibility to light without shadows.

But they are both fine lenses. I doubt if either one would dissapoint you.
Brent Gair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 12:43 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

i guess im just confused on what the actual mm means. i would think that the 50mm would focus in closer to an object. so give me an example... say and object is referred to as 1, then the 1 to 1 shows it exact size, and the 1:2 is half as big... meaning the 1:1 can zoom closer?
dapoopta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 12:07 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

so, I have the 50mm f2.0 right now....been using it the last 2 days. The problem I have with it is that the focal plane is so small when I zoom up on something VERY close. like, i took a picture of a spider and its face was in focus, but its legs werent. Does this have to do with the f # i use. because I set it to f3.5 and it worked better. Basically... if i get the 35mm f3.5 i think I will be more pleased, since when I had it on auto mode it went to f3.5 most the time anyway. good thing click has the 10 day return thing, then I'm gonna buy the 35 and test it out a bit!
dapoopta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 1:16 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 38
Default

dapoopta wrote:
Quote:
that would be obvious from the descriptions i listed above. and how did you get 2 stops better from f2 to f3.5, would it not be 1.5? what type of benefits would the stops get me?

mckennmais correct about it being two stops better. f2 - f2.8 - f3.5

Each aperture is a stop. From f2 to f3.5 (or vice versa)is thereforea difference of two stops.

pip22 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 1:00 AM.