Great shot , I like it very much .
I also see that this lens is doing a good job for you .

well done..

Thanks Fons,

I think I start seeing fundamental difference between 35mm macro and 50mm macro lenses. With 35mm you have to come to the object very close (it allows to as close as 15 mm), whereas 50 mm allows only as close as 24cm (240mm). Even with 1:2 ratio the camera must still be pretty darn close to the subject. That really shallows the DOF to the point where I need drastically step down the aperture. As a result I always seem to be running out of light. As on this image, there was plenty of light on the scene, and yet read the settings.

Just like on this shot;

http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=6418

I would like to be able to photograph every petal in good sharp focus, but it seems I will run of sunlight (and affordable Olympus ISO) before I can rich 1cm of DOF.

How is that on 50mm, Fons?

-

Sergey Green wrote:
> Thanks Fons,
>
> I think I start seeing fundamental difference between 35mm macro and 50mm macro lenses. With
> 35mm you have to come to the object very close (it allows to as close as 15 mm), whereas 50
> mm allows only as close as 24cm (240mm). Even with 1:2 ratio the camera must still be pretty
> darn close to the subject. That really shallows the DOF to the point where I need drastically
> step down the aperture. As a result I always seem to be running out of light. As on this image,
> there was plenty of light on the scene, and yet read the settings.
>
> Just like on this shot;
>
> http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=6418
>
> I would like to be able to photograph every petal in good sharp focus, but it seems I will
> run of sunlight (and affordable Olympus ISO) before I can rich 1cm of DOF.
>
> How is that on 50mm, Fons?
>
> -
>

I think this is one of the reasons why people pay big money for 1:1, 100mm, f/2.8 macos. Greater DOF and you can get some distance between the lens and the subject.


bert

Great shot Sergey.

Dick

>
> I think this is one of the reasons why people pay big money for 1:1, 100mm, f/2.8 macos.
> Greater DOF and you can get some distance between the lens and the subject.
>
>
> bert
>

Are you talking about 50mm with extender? Or do you have some Sigma in mind?
-

Sergey Green wrote:
> >
> > I think this is one of the reasons why people pay big money for 1:1, 100mm, f/2.8 macos.
> > Greater DOF and you can get some distance between the lens and the subject.
> >
> >
> > bert
> >
>
> Are you talking about 50mm with extender? Or do you have some Sigma in mind?
> -
>

For Oly I guess it would be Sigma but really I was thinking Canon or Nikon.

bert

Donald Bryant wrote:
> Sergey Green wrote:
> > Thanks Fons,
> >
> > I think I start seeing fundamental difference between 35mm macro and 50mm macro lenses. With
> > 35mm you have to come to the object very close (it allows to as close as 15 mm), whereas 50
> > mm allows only as close as 24cm (240mm). Even with 1:2 ratio the camera must still be pretty
> > darn close to the subject. That really shallows the DOF to the point where I need drastically
> > step down the aperture. As a result I always seem to be running out of light. As on this image,
> > there was plenty of light on the scene, and yet read the settings.
> >
> > Just like on this shot;
> >
> > http://myolympus.org/document.php?id=6418
> >
> > I would like to be able to photograph every petal in good sharp focus, but it seems I will
> > run of sunlight (and affordable Olympus ISO) before I can rich 1cm of DOF.
> >
> > How is that on 50mm, Fons?
>
> I think this is one of the reasons why people pay big money for 1:1, 100mm, f/2.8 macos.
> Greater DOF and you can get some distance between the lens and the subject.
>
> bert

I would prefer the EC1.4 teleconverter in combination with the 35mm macro ( in my case the 50mm macro ) you can use it also with your other lenses .

-Fons

Answer to Bert copy to Sergey

I would prefer the EC1.4 teleconverter in combination with the 35mm macro ( in my case the 50mm macro ) you can use it also with your other lenses .

-Fons