Lens comparison 50mm and 35mm

[troyjbon]

Practically i'm new to Oly/DSLR.

Enquiring about 50mm and 35mm lens for E510. Some needs convertor and some does not? What is the difference? Why the convertor.

What is the price range out there and is 50mm better than 35mm lens? What do normally users prefer? Kindly give opinions. Might buy one.

[marky]

Firstly, the OM lens are those that need the convertors as they are the old olympus lens for film. The convertor is need cos the the different mount they used for the cameras. For those old birds pls correct me if i'm wrong.

Secondly, regarding the 50mm and 35mm lens, i dun have both of this lens so cannot comment much on it but here is a website for you to take a look at the pictures produced by these lens. What i do know is that the 50mm is a great lens.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/zuikodigital/

[schon]

hi troyjbon

i believe your question is - what is the difference between the 35mm and 50mm macro lenses?

the 50mm per se only gives a subject maginifcation ratio of 1:2, which basically means the image formed on the sensor is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed, while the 35mm gives a subject magnification of 1:1.

and obvious advantage of having a 1:1 lens is therefore greater subject magnifcation. i.e. small stuff appears bigger.

however, in order for the 35mm to achieve that 1:1 ratio, it has to move into its minimum working distance which is 14.6cm, and this has its disadvantages - getting this close would scare off most insects, and also you and/or your camera could cast a shadow on your subject.

in order for the 50mm to have a 1:1 subject magnifcation ratio, an extension tube is therefore required, which is what i believe you are referring to as a 'converter' in your post.

by the way, both lenses in terms of image quality have exceptional sharpness and clarity.

hope that helps.

[troyjbon]

Receiving great advises from experienced photographer is what I need.
Thank you all. Keep those advices coming if there are stil any.

[schon]

perhaps what you really need is to read up. you've got the internet at your fingertips. that's more than enough.

[VR Man]

Originally Posted by schon hi troyjbon i believe your question is - what is the difference between the 35mm and 50mm macro lenses? the 50mm per se only gives a subject maginifcation ratio of 1:2, which basically means the image formed on the sensor is 1/2 the size of the object being photographed, while the 35mm gives a subject magnification of 1:1. and obvious advantage of having a 1:1 lens is therefore greater subject magnifcation. i.e. small stuff appears bigger. however, in order for the 35mm to achieve that 1:1 ratio, it has to move into its minimum working distance which is 14.6cm, and this has its disadvantages - getting this close would scare off most insects, and also you and/or your camera could cast a shadow on your subject. in order for the 50mm to have a 1:1 subject magnifcation ratio, an extension tube is therefore required, which is what i believe you are referring to as a 'converter' in your post. by the way, both lenses in terms of image quality have exceptional sharpness and clarity. hope that helps.

Thanks for the info. I was just looking for the above info lately.

Does the extension degrade the quality of the 50mm lens?

Thanks in advance

[schon]

Originally Posted by VR Man Thanks for the info. I was just looking for the above info lately. Does the extension degrade the quality of the 50mm lens? Thanks in advance

the extension tube is actually hollow, so i suppose that is no degradation in image quality - but the lens becomes darker.

more specs here:
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/ex-25/

[VR Man]

Originally Posted by schon the extension tube is actually hollow, so i suppose that is no degradation in image quality - but the lens becomes darker. more specs here: http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/ex-25/

Thanks for the info. Yes, just did some goggling, an extension tube affects the working distant b/w lens and subject and dof.

Here is a link I found for those that are interested.

[VR Man]

A bit OT but check out this guy's macro set up and also an idea for OlyFlyer to use a chip on older zuiko lens.

http://www.naturfotograf.com/CPU_extension.html

[Oly5050]

For the price of the 35 mm, I think you cannot go too far wrong.

[Mikefellh]

Originally Posted by troyjbon Practically i'm new to Oly/DSLR. Some (lenses) needs convertor and some does not? What is the difference? Why the convertor.

A good place for new users to visit to learn more about using Oly dSLRs is:
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/index.html

To learn about why some lenses need converters, check out the "Using legacy lenses on E-System cameras" there.

[Oly5050]

OK...this might be moot to some, but wrt to the 35 mm lens .... MAI TU LIAO!!! Go and get it. IMHO, it is a damn sharp lens....way sharper than the 14-42 mm kit lens. In terms of value, I think it is an outstanding purchase. It works really well as Macro, portraits, and for distant scenery......a little like a zoom lens for me. What it cannot do obviously, is wide-angle.

[VR Man]

Originally Posted by Oly5050 OK...this might be moot to some, but wrt to the 35 mm lens .... MAI TU LIAO!!! Go and get it. IMHO, it is a damn sharp lens....way sharper than the 14-42 mm kit lens. In terms of value, I think it is an outstanding purchase. It works really well as Macro, portraits, and for distant scenery......a little like a zoom lens for me. What it cannot do obviously, is wide-angle.

The 50mm is sharper then the 35mm but more then 2 times cost. How much sharper?

With the extension tube, it becomes almost 3 times!

Wonder if the extra sharpness is worth it for shooting macros of plants and microscope work

[Oly5050]

Sorry lar...I cannot give the answer to that. I only know that what others have been saying about the 35 mm is indeed true. It is a sharp lens. Compared to the kit 14-42 mm, it is indeed better. For $300, it is a great price for such a lens. But I do not know how sharp it is when compared to the 50 mm. I can only guess that the 50 mm definitely would be sharper than the 35 mm, but whether it is worth it or not .... I dun know.

[holidaydom]

Originally Posted by VR Man The 50mm is sharper then the 35mm but more then 2 times cost. How much sharper? With the extension tube, it becomes almost 3 times! Wonder if the extra sharpness is worth it for shooting macros of plants and microscope work

I have both the 35 and 50 and I can tell you it's hard to tell the difference in sharpness (honestly). Unless you setup a controlled experiment and run some sort of analyzer test but who in the real world does that anyway - we're concerned with photos! not graphs!

The biggest difference to me would be that although you can't focus down to 1:1 with the ZD50, it's is nice and bright at f2.0 with a good bokeh; and the 100mm focal length (in 35mm terms) gives a very natural perspective.

You can get the ZD50 to capture at 1:1 using the EX25 or a high-quality close-up filter-lens attachment but you will have to get very close to your sucject and in doing so, chances are you'll cast a shadow over it or scare it away if it's a live insect...

[microcosm]

I would recommend that you read up on the E-System on Olympus' website and the Four Thirds website to understand the platform better. There is a sticky thread for new comers into the platform like yourself where much information has been compiled for your easy reference. Just sit back with your mouse and a cup of coffee and read up on the links posted in that thread. And when you run into any further questions, you can then post them in here. OK? I am sure the community is more than happy to help.

You will be surprised how much more you will learn about the E-System (and Four Thirds) and come to appreciate the platform more.

Happy reading!

[troyjbon]

Wonderful information received

In terms of quality, many says that its almost the same. Well, in the real world, people wont notice at all.

Price wise, its double too. about late $700 for a 50mm comparing to a 35mm which is about $300+.

For starters , I might begin with a 35mm first. Might also use it to take potrait shots. Who knows I might just need the 50mm for different shooting scenarios in the near future.

[microcosm]

Glad you find the information helpful.

And looking forward to meeting up with you in the near future. Might see you at a kopi session?

Take care and happy shopping.

[troyjbon]

Yup, maybe ill be meeting you guys up for the next kopi session. Nice people we have here.

[VR Man]

Originally Posted by holidaydom I have both the 35 and 50 and I can tell you it's hard to tell the difference in sharpness (honestly). Unless you setup a controlled experiment and run some sort of analyzer test but who in the real world does that anyway - we're concerned with photos! not graphs! The biggest difference to me would be that although you can't focus down to 1:1 with the ZD50, it's is nice and bright at f2.0 with a good bokeh; and the 100mm focal length (in 35mm terms) gives a very natural perspective. You can get the ZD50 to capture at 1:1 using the EX25 or a high-quality close-up filter-lens attachment but you will have to get very close to your sucject and in doing so, chances are you'll cast a shadow over it or scare it away if it's a live insect...

Thanks for sharing. Guess I will get the 35mm first.