Yes.elf wrote:Are these latest shots sharpened?
All (RAW) get a one-step sharpening in the camera. Then I add anoth 1-2 stages (JPEGs) in Olympus Master
Harold
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
That's why I bought mine too.OzRay wrote:I've done macro shots outdoors with a Nikkor 400mm and macro tubes and it works very well to give you standoff distance, but I find it better for larger subjects such as butterflies etc.
The 70-300 has some pros and some cons. At the 70mm end, with 72mm extension, I can get 2/3 of a standard postage stamp to fill the frame but at about 10cm from the front of the lens. The 300mm, no extension, covers slightly more than two stamps at about one meter, similar to what I am used to with my Tamron 70-210mm* plus a x2 converter, used for many years for larger, active insects. That reminds me: I have a rare Carl Zeiss Jena 75-300 for OM which I have yet to use/test. Watch this space!Harold Gough wrote:Well, I just won an EP-2, 14-42mm lens and a Zuiko 70-300mm digital lens on Ebay.
I attach the 4/3 zoom (I didn't think there was a micro equivalent but it came with the camera anyway) via the 4/3 adapter. As of yesterday, I can attach OM lenses via that adapter, plus a 4/3 OM adapter, or direct to Micro 4/3.lauriek wrote:Harold have you got the 4/3->micro4/3 adapter? Is that 70-300 the micro4/3 or the 4/3 lens?
If you do have the adapter you owe it to yourself to check out the Zuiko digital 35mm/f3.5 macro lens, it's for 4/3 bodies - and it's a little cracker of a lens, seriously sharp, compact for a 4/3 lens and really quite cheap for new Olympus glass.. The only downside is relatively short working distance at 1:1 inherent to a lens/sensor combo like this.
Interesting. That would suggest its main use was to be on extension.ChrisR wrote:By the way..
That Oly 50mm f3.5 was apparently optimised for 20:1, which seems odd bearing in mind its focus abilities. ( I have one I bought as "broken" for £18. )
It seems to me that most lenses give a respectable image for web pictures about 800 pixels wide, they have to be real duffers not to.
It isn't weather-proof either but I don't do much photography in the rain. Anyway, the lens has some glowing reviews and I've just bought a used one for £159 and should have it tomorrow. (My car repair will not be too expensive after all!).lauriek wrote:If you do have the adapter you owe it to yourself to check out the Zuiko digital 35mm/f3.5 macro lens, it's for 4/3 bodies - and it's a little cracker of a lens, seriously sharp, compact for a 4/3 lens and really quite cheap for new Olympus glass.. The only downside is relatively short working distance at 1:1 inherent to a lens/sensor combo like this.
any reference for that?ChrisR wrote:By the way..
That Oly 50mm f3.5 was apparently optimised for 20:1, which seems odd bearing in mind its focus abilities.
...
Correct but the 80mm, which I obtained last year but have yet to use, works only on extension, only at around 1:1* and focusing only at close distances. * Of course, as with all lenses, you can use at higher magnifications than the designers intended.ChrisR wrote:I'll look for it. Perhaps I should have said 1:20 .
Or perhaps more likely a mis-print or a mis-read somewhere!
Later - poking around the net I found various descriptions (one said it has 6 elements, the rest 5 !) , perhaps Alan Wood's http://www.alanwood.net/photography/oly ... 50-35.html is the most reliable.
Optimised for 1:0.1, ie one tenth of life size, but the "recommended" range is given as 1:0.1 to 1:2, then the 80mm Macro lens is preferred.