Macro topside and uw: 50mm or 35mm?

[AbyssalPlains]

Hi all,
After searching threads back and forth and finding only bits and pieces here and there, I thought I'd give this another shot.
I've been using the Sigma 105mm so far, but begun to run into issues with
regard to practicality because of the lens' narrow picture angle and
narrow depth of field (I sometimes find it very hard to get my
subject into the frame and keep it in focus. I posted a thread about
this earlier). After reading many helpful responses,
I was going to treat myself to the Zuiko 50 mm macro lens but I am having
second thoughts and wonder if the Zuiko 35mm macro lens might be a
better idea, especially since I do a lot of macro photography on land
also. What makes me hesitate about the 50mm is the comparatively small
magnification, which is only 1:2 compared to the 1:1 of the 35 mm
lens. On the other hand, the 35 apparently has an extremely short
working distance to achieve this kind of magnification, which is a
disadvantage especially when photographing skittish critters like
insects. So I'm wondering whether the 50mm might be the more versatile
lens, and I could make up for the smaller magnification by adding a
teleconverter or an extension tube underwater, where the loss of light
caused by these accessories would be of no concern since we're using
strobes anyway.

So, I guess the short version of my convoluted question is: For macro underwater AND on land, would the 35mm or 50mm be the better choice?

Any input greatly appreciated, as always.

 

[bigfrog23]

first off what kind of camera do you have? also do u know what the sensor crop is 1X 1.5X, 1.6X, 2.0X.

 

[f3nikon]

I maybe getting both for my E-330, keep in mind the Zuiko 35mm is like a 70mm in film and the 50mm more like the 100mm in film.

The DOF on the 35 maybe a bit wider, also these lenses have different angles when you use a flat port or dome port. The 35mm would be my first choice due to being so close to my Nikon 55mm and 60mm macros in film, lenses that I use a bunch.

 

[Rick Murchison]

So, I guess the short version of my convoluted question is: For macro underwater AND on land, would the 35mm or 50mm be the better choice?

And my convoluted answer is:
Well..... sort of an apples & oranges question. The short answer is that the 50's better topside and the 35's better below
My personal preference is for something a bit longer above and a bit shorter below; my pocketbook generally dictates a zoom/macro compromise. (right now I'm shooting a 28-140, nearly always set to 28 underwater and around 100 for topside macro).
If I had to choose I'd pick the 35 - not because it's a better compromise, but because my preverence for macro is underwater and I'm willing to sacrifice topside convenience for better underwater performance.
TAANSTAFL applies
Rick

 

[jlyle]

Unfortunately, I don't have both, but the Zuiko 50mm is a fantastic lens for u/w. (The 50mm gives you the film-equivalent of 1:1. With a Woody's dioptre, you can do even better).

Nearly all of my photos in Lembeh were taken with the 50mm.

Just my $0.02.

Muck diving in Indonesia - trip report & pics

 

[Rick Murchison]

Nearly all of my photos in Lembeh were taken with the 50mm.

Sure can't argue with results like that
Sweet!
Rick

 

[AbyssalPlains]

jlyle,

Your Lembeh pics rock! Did you take those with the naked Zuiko 50mm or using any extension tubes, teleconverters, etc.?

 

[jlyle]

jlyle,

Your Lembeh pics rock! Did you take those with the naked Zuiko 50mm or using any extension tubes, teleconverters, etc.?

Thanks. Naked 50mm. For some smaller stuff, I pushed a Woody's Dioptre on the end of the lens port. I have found the increased working distance of the 50mm to be ideal for shooting critters - you can get maximum magnification, from far enough away not to scare the little guys. The 50mm focuses quickly, but a modeling light helps in low light.