NRich
Senior Member
Hello Danny, Mike, ZipperZ, Babe, and othersThey might be quiet about posting here Rich, but they are reading,
my stats tell me that).
Be looking forward to your post Norman, should be very interesting.
(Danny- Yes, its either NRich or Norman, your preference, either one is Ok.)
Alright then, I did a brief intuitive comparison in the store between the 500D and the MCON 35 macro lens attachment.
I was allowed to set up a tripod on the counter, for approximately 30 minutes, change from one lens to the other. I have thought seriously about posting comparitive images, and have decided not to go that route. I am wary of "scientific appearing "tests", I prefer serious comparitives to be done by independant professional reviewers, who post a battery of tests under contolled conditions.
Instead I am posting one coin image only- processed to my preference- of the lens I choose and explained my subjective reasons for doing so. In the future I will follow up with images in the field, where the qualities of what the len chosen is more expressively evident.
I encourage those seriously interested in a macro attachment to undergo a simular process and arrive at their own conclusions. The benefit of doing this is the unique confidence breed of first hand, experience. My conclusion bucks the trend. I thought they might appear the same or indistinquishable, they were not, I discovered perceptable differences as matched with the F717.
My preference, decisively is for the Olympus MCON35 over the Canon 500D. Here is what I found- and one might use it as a guide in areas to look for.
The Olympus MCON 35 is physically larger, heavier, and notablely more substantial on handling on first inspection. Personally I like this.
The MCON 35 has a greater factor of magnification. Evident, looking through the two lens side by side. Both give better working distance to the subject, than without a macro attachment.
There is is a noticeable deeper, richer pool of multicoating to the MCON 35 lens. This is evident just by looking into the two lens.You will need a step up ring to use the MCON 35.This is not a problem for me.
I detected a very slight green cast to the Canon 500D. This was detected looking through the lens at a color test refence 35mm slide, placed just above a light table.
The MCON 35 would appear to gather a little more light.
In Summary, If one were to hold the two lens over an object, as if a magnifying glass, my guess would be that 9 out of 10 would instictively prefer the MCON 35 over the Canon 500D. It is obvious enough, the staff and I had a little smile, whats not to chose. Not that the Canon500D it not a good lens, it is. The Olympus MCON 35 justs stands out, that much more, at least to me.
I have not included the single element Nikon macro filter in this comparison. I narrowed my choice among the leading two element macro attachments. The price: $125 for the Canon- $ 145 for the Olympus ( Canadian Dollars). There are other cheaper macro filters available at a fraction of the price, but I ask myself, why degrade the fine Carl Zeiss lens, when the reative cost difference is so small, especially if one is at all serious about macro close-ups.
When I returned to download the two sets of store samples, the intial impressions were further confirmed in favor of the MCON 35. No 500D sample was not quite as sharp as the MCON 35, the MCON samples at the same exposure showed slighly more snap and saturation - I will not be bringing the MCON 35 back - for me its a keeper. I find it ironic the MCON lens (and this series) is so rarely mentioned, yet matches well with the 7x7 series, in my opinion it deserves better.
I recomend handling and testing these two fine lens for yourself. One can't do better than know find hand, find out for oneself what attachment will further kindle their macro close-up inspirations.
NRich
http://www.pbase.com/norman
