how much better would the shot be with the 50mm f2?

[nirvana84]

hi there,

found this widgery grub here in northqueensland the other day and had to get a close up of it, but a little disappointed with the outcome, i used the kit lens.

just checked out what settings i used and seems i used the apperture of f20!! and auto iso went up to 400, my bad! im still very much a noob and finding there is so much to think about when taking photos, i had the apperture set at f20 for an earlier snap, then pulled my camera out my bag and had to preety much point and shoot as there was a crowed around the bug i couldnt take my time and go though the motions! oh well, living and learning.

using a lower f stop would have made the shot better i think.. but would i have been better equiped with the 50mm f2??

thanks for reading

[Greg McCary]

Well, I think f/20 is way to high. Also the sticks look sharp and the grub looks OOF. Motion blur from a slow shutter? I think f/8 and a higher shutter speed around 125 or higher would have froze the moving grug. You might post shots like this in the N&W or critiques forums too. The guys there will have you shooting pro shoots in weeks.
It just takes a lot af practice but hanging here at PR will trim the learning curve time a bunch. You should have saw some of my first flower shots.LOL

[Sushigaijin]

I don't think the 50 f/2 would have made much difference here. Obviously we have identified that the shutter was too slow and the aperture too small - both things that the 50mm would still suffer from.

But we CAN generalize the question: Would the 50mm F/2 macro be a better lens for this shot than the kit lens?

Answer is, yes. The 50mm is a better lens for macros and close-ups than the kit lens.

The 40-150 with the ex-25 extension tube would have worked well for this shot too.

To digress, The 50mm is designed to shoot macro but I use it as a workhorse for portraits and general photography too. I use it twice as often as my 14-54, despite having the same focal range available - I use the 14-54 from 14-35mm, and everything past that gets shot with the 50. For macros like yours, the 50mm is probably the very best lens you could use. Since the 50mm only gets up to 1:1, closer macros are better relegated to the siggy 100 or 150. Zuiko will supposedly announce a 100mm-ish macro lens this fall, I'm waiting to see what they offer up before I buy a longer macro.

[erikzen]

I am a complete noob and can't really comment on the quality of the shot using one lens vs. another.

I do have the 50mm macro though and I love that lens. It really brings the E-510 up a notch in terms of quality. Everything seems sharper and colors seem more natural - when I can manage to get the right exposure! Better lenses do make a difference and if that difference is only in my enjoyment of the camera and not necessarily in the quality of the photos then to me it's well worth spending the money.

That thing looks huge! What the heck is it anyway and how big is it?

I've seen grubs in my lawn but they are about the size of a dime. What is that thing going to turn into when it grows up?