Jay Drew wrote:
>This is sort of directed at Moose since I've seen him post a number of times
>on the Kiron 105.
>
>Basically, how does the Kiron measure up to Zuiko 80 in the realm of the 1
>to 1 land.
>
>
Sorry, I don't know. Although I've occasionally be tempted to buy an
80/4, I have so far been able to think realistically about whether I
would actually use it.
Over the last few years, I've used macros for two distinct purposes.
One use has been making slides of printed material for university
lectures for a friend. For this, I use a copy stand (converted enlarger)
and the 50/3.5 and a Tamron 90/2.5. I use lights, so aperture can be
selected for optimum lens performance. Results have been more than sharp
and detailed enough, so I don't see the need for any other lens. Also,
the 80/4 has a maximum subject size of 48x72mm on either 65-116 or
bellows, which would limit it to just a few shots.
For some reason I don't entirely understand, I tend to compartmentalize
my macro lenses. My major recent use of macro has been for shots of
natural subjects outdoors. For this I mostly use the Kiron and second
the 135/4.5. I suppoe I could use the 105mm on the copy stand, but the
stand is not tall and 105 is a little long. The 80/4, with much of its
range beyond 1:1 and no use above 1:2, just isn't practical for this use.
So I really don't have any use for an 80/4. In theory, I suppose it
should be better than the Kiron, but the Kiron is just right for my use
and performs awfully well.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|