Jul-Jun 'water year' - are we done yet?

 My worksheet calculates weather on a July-June period. Most folks around these parts actually do Sep-Aug.. praps I should make a shift? In any case, I can do a 12-month report now and assume that the next week will be dry; if it isn't true it is quite close.

Our Jul-Jun total right now is 92¼ inches. That's absurdly higher than our almost-58" normal based on the new 30-year recent average, but it is not the highest - that still belongs to 2016-17 at 94 inches. The previous 30-year average (1981-2010) was 63.7 inches, so our expectations were lowered but then shattered by all the moisture. Sep-Jun featured only one month below average, and that was a 94% March. Five months were over 10.5", not bad when the wettest month should be 9.06" (November). June is at 188% of normal as of the 24th; the week could end with drizzle or some light showers, so it could creep up a bit more.

Our two wettest years, compared to the current 'normal' based on 1991-2020 amounts

p.s. Happy near-anniversary those who endured last year's Heat Dome. On June 28th our thermometer topped out at 105.6° - and that was among the lowest of the OR/WA stations I looked at that day! It reached 116° in Portland, an hour south and 750' lower. Elevation makes us snowier in the winter (April too!), and when it's hot it's better to be here than most valley locations. Today reached 101° so we're ahead of last year's 6/26 reading. Forecasts are for the marine push to begin tomorrow afternoon, so the next two records are not in jeopardy. Yay!

A new lens contest!

My somewhat clever swap of K-mount macro lenses has put me in a curious spot. My K-s2 will be far happier in its current (sick-solenoid) state with the Sigma 50/2.8 lens - but it also plays in the μ43 kit. In fact my Olympus 30/3.5 has two new competitors: the 50/2.8 as is, and a speed-boosted 36/2! The latter does add glass though, so optically it may have an effect that makes a difference.. but either way the sigma has a speed advantage.

Another good point: the Olympus can actually work at 1.25x macro! You won't get much light on the subject at that working distance though, so that 'advantage' needs to be evaluated as well.

We will check back soon with some results! :√)

---

OK, some things are easily learned!

• For one, the speed-booster does not allow for 1:1 images. Closer to 1:5 than 1:1 in fact.
• Another obvious point: if you like any details with your macro images, you won't be shooting below f/8 and the speed contest becomes irrelevant. As a multi-purpose lens it could be helpful though.. and if you like color smears with a rim of sharpness then it's a very big deal!
• And yet again, I learn that for me a 1:2 closeup lens is more than enough magnification..

So for 1:2 and closer shots, who's the winner? 

Well, no surprise: both are very nice. I shot wide open since the wind was swaying the test roses; I'll try again soon with iso1600 and f/8 to see if any bokeh issues sway me. I'd expect two macros from companies with long experience to be pretty similar in any case.

In most cases users prefer a longer FL to keep from spooking live targets, and the 50mm left the front element about 2" from the text I shot. The 35mm was about an inch, and below that for 1.2x shots. So for me, if compact is my top priority the μ43 kit will come and the AF 30mm wins out. If the Pentax kit with primes is in play however, and even if both kits join me, the 50 macro can play for both.

---

While I'm on that topic, note that I have Four 50mm lenses now: the Sigma f/2.8 1:1, Pentax smc-A f/2 & 1.4, and a Zonlai f/1.4 in native μ43 mount. 

Given my gear and my macro needs, I am likely best served by an extension tube or a diopter lens. We'll try that too! I have a short extension for μ43 so a K version should do nicely, and a few diopters should fit my current lenses.