I recently did a dive on the wreck of the Yukon in San Diego, CA intending to take shots of similar subjects with my E-300 using both the 35mm macro and my newly acquired 50mm macro. The lenses were swapped in between dives, so it was impossible to exactly replicate each shot. (As a comic note, on this particular day, viz. was outstanding and I was stuck with macro lenses. Oh well.)

Trying to take comparison macro photographs underwater turned out to be more challending than I thought. In addition, I mistakenly set the camera to aperture priority mode at f/5.6. This can give me reasonable results with the 35mm lense, but DOF of field on the 50mm lens is razor thin at this f-stop and many of these shots were out of focus despite the fact that the camera autofocus thought that it was locked on.

So, the resulting images are not paricularly great, but you may find them of interest. You can find the comparison images at:

http://www.ocdiving.com/gallery2/main.php?...;g2_itemId=9385

where full-size images are available. The images are processed to correct the raw images for typical underwater problems.

Hope you find these of interes.

Rick Colman
Laguna Hills, CA

The 50mm f2 is a pretty expensive piece of glass. I don't see a whole lot of bang for your buck difference between the two images.

But keep in mind:

- F/2 vs. F/3.5 is a big difference in low light conditions.

- you need to get physically closer to fill the frame with the 35mm, so can be difficult to light

- focus seems more critical for the 50, meaning you need to manual focus carefully or use small f-stop.

I don't see a whole lot of difference either, not sure that I would buy the 50 instead of the 35 at this point.

Rick.

Hi Rick,

I have used both of these lenses underwater for some time now and I can assure you that the 50 mm is much better. If you think you can make a judgement about lens quality baised on an internet jpeg. your wrong. Checkout the charts for the Olympus 50 mm, Canon 60 mm, Nikon 105 mm and others at popphoto.com. These lenses were all bench tested using the same sensor and software and the differences are clear.

Phil Rudin

TNX for the comments Phil. I have already purchased the E-330 rig. This mostly has to do with my eyesight, which is poor. By the time I look through my prescription dive mask, and then through the optical viewfinder of the Ikelite housing, I am not seeing much. I am HOPING that the live preview will make it easier to frame and shoot - at least it does on land.

Also, I recently did a dive on the wreck of the Yukon intending to take shots of similar subjects with my E-300 using both the 35mm macro and my newly acquired 50mm macro. The lenses were swapped in between dives, so it was impossible to exactly replicate each shot. (As a comic note, on this particular day, viz. was outstanding and I was stuck with macro lenses. Oh well.)

Trying to take comparison macro photographs underwater turned out to be more challending than I thought. In addition, I mistakenly set the camera to aperture priority mode at f/5.6. This can give me reasonable results with the 35mm lense, but DOF of field on the 50mm lens is razor thin at this f-stop and many of these shots were out of focus despite the fact that the camera autofocus thought that it was locked on to something in the field.

You can find the comparison images at:

http://www.ocdiving.com/gallery2/main.php?...;g2_itemId=9385

where full-size images are available. The images are processed to correct the raw images for typical underwater problems.