35mm Macro Test Shots

[tomcat]

These are a few test shots I taken with my new 35mm Macro lens.

Cat Portrait

Cat Portrait

Flower Macro

Same Flower Macro but with the EX-25 Extension Tube Attached.
It is still possible to autofocus with the 35mm Macro / EX-25 combination but only in good lighting conditions. It is however not possible to get good flash coverage with either the built-in flash or the FL-36 because the lens to subject distance is very small with the EX-25 on.

Macro of a small mantis (~ 1" long)

 

[uginz]

wat was the working distance like with the extension tube on?

 

[selamatlzh]

is the mantis cropped ?

 

[puny]

how does it compare with the 50mm lens? Is the 35 mm sharper, more detail and closer than the 50mm?

 

[tomcat]

With the EX-25 on, the working distance is extremely short, about 1 cm or so. You would need to move the camera close to the subject until it is almost in focus and then autofocus on it.

The shot of the mantis was not cropped.

I felt that the 50mm is still sharper. After all, it is an ED lens which the 35mm is not. Nonetheless, the 35mm is really great value for money for a macro lens. Costs less than the Sigma 50mm macro lens.

For the same subject image size, you do have to move closer to the subject than with the 50mm. This might be an advantage if your flash is not so powerful. Then again, there might be greater tendency to blow away highlights if there are too much whites in the image. :dunno:

 

[NMSS_2]

For the same subject image size, you do have to move closer to the subject than with the 50mm. This might be an advantage if your flash is not so powerful. Then again, there might be greater tendency to blow away highlights if there are too much whites in the image. :dunno:

an advantage?:dunno:

 

[tomcat]

an advantage?:dunno:

Example, when I take portrait shots of my cat with the 50mm, I might have to stand 2m away. With the 35mm, I might have to move closer to 1m (say) away to get the same subject image size in the frame. So my FL-36 would need to fire at lower intensity 1m away with the 35mm as compared to 2m away with the 50mm and would take a shorter time to recover between shots, everything else remaining constant.

 

[Hacker]

For the same subject image size, you do have to move closer to the subject than with the 50mm. This might be an advantage if your flash is not so powerful. Then again, there might be greater tendency to blow away highlights if there are too much whites in the image. :dunno:

Do you use the STF-22 or know of some samples?

 

[tomcat]

Do you use the STF-22 or know of some samples?

No. I don't take enough close-up macros with the EX-25 to justify spending so much on such a flash setup.

 

[konadude]

Wonderful pix!

I'm thinking of getting a macro lens myself for the E-500...would u be able to share how much the 35mm macro costs?

 

[tomcat]

Wonderful pix!

I'm thinking of getting a macro lens myself for the E-500...would u be able to share how much the 35mm macro costs?

I got it for $375 with GST.

 

[ykkok]

Wow... this is about 60% cheaper than the 50mm f2.0. Great quality and value for money... :thumbsup:

 

[konadude]

Wow... this is about 60% cheaper than the 50mm f2.0. Great quality and value for money... :thumbsup:

Indeed! Sounds like a value buy!

 

[harmony]

Hi Tomcat... btw, for the Mantis shot. How far away are you?

 

[tomcat]

Hi Tomcat... btw, for the Mantis shot. How far away are you?

I'm not sure exactly since I'm too busy trying to focus and shoot before he flies away or walk out of my frame. Maybe 2" or so. :dunno:

 

[hammer_400]

any pics of the lens? stopped by ms but they have to order

 

[tomcat]

any pics of the lens? stopped by ms but they have to order

Pic of the 35mm Macro from dcresource:

Did you try Cathay Photo? When I bought it from them, they said they still have stock.

 

[OlymE1]

any pics of the lens? stopped by ms but they have to order

You may consider this http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=170464