wanting to go macro

C

CrippledSandwich

Messages
615
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone

i have tried searching for info on here regarding my question, but i haven't been very successful so i hope somebody here might be able to give me some advice.

I would like to go macro in the near future and as you are properly aware im limited on the amount of lenses i can use with my oly. so i was wondering if any one could give me some advice on these 2 lenses

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/66097/show.html

and

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/3253/show.html

obversely there is a huge price difference but if im honest i would rather save and get the best one if needs be. is there much difference between the 2 and what in your opinion could i expect result wise from both of these?

thanks in advance for your time

Chris
 
I don't know much about Olympus lenses, but hopefully what i know about other brands will translate over...

The main thing that I noticed is that the first lens (the cheaper one) offers 1:1 magnification. This means that you can fill the frame with an object which is the same size as your sensor, i.e. 18mm x 13.5mm. However the second lens offers a maximum magnification of only 0.52x, which means the smallest object which will fill the frame is 34.6mm x 26mm.

On that basis the first one would seem more desirable. The main advantage of the second one is that it's f/2 rather than f/3.5, which isn't such a big deal for macro.
 
StewartR said:
I don't know much about Olympus lenses, but hopefully what i know about other brands will translate over...

The main thing that I noticed is that the first lens (the cheaper one) offers 1:1 magnification. This means that you can fill the frame with an object which is the same size as your sensor, i.e. 18mm x 13.5mm. However the second lens offers a maximum magnification of only 0.52x, which means the smallest object which will fill the frame is 34.6mm x 26mm.

On that basis the first one would seem more desirable. The main advantage of the second one is that it's f/2 rather than f/3.5, which isn't such a big deal for macro.
Click to expand...


thanks StewartR for your reply, i think my wallet would agree with getting the first one lol but your info in very much appreciated. think i might have a look on flickr for any shots taken with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top