On Sun, 21 Jun 1998, Ulf Westerberg wrote:
|First Denton Taylor wrote:
|>
|>> I vote for a 200 macro--here's why.
|>
|>> 2. Because so many folk use the Oly for macro, there would be quite a
|>> market for a 200 macro.
|>
|>> Waddaya think?
|>
|
|Then Richard Schätzl wrote:
|>Only if it is an non IF lens. Why?
|>With an IF lens you have to reduce the focal lenght of the lens to focus
|>(the lens gets not longer, so they have to reduce the focal lenght to
|>focus). With an IF 200mm Macro,the resulting object distance from the
|>front lens would be the same as an 135mm Macro on the Auto Macro Tube
|>65-116mm (depending on the magnification). So all the new "smart"
|>180-200mm Macro IF lenses are not better than the good ol 135mm Zuiko
|>(for macro purpose).
|>But I will concede, that an new lens with reduced minimal focusing
|>distance would be great.
|>
|
|Right on, Richard. Too many people forget this IF-effect when raving about
|new design in lenses. You cannot substitute extension.
|
|My vote: A special 2X converter with tripod collar for the 90/2 macro lens,
|designed just for this lens. This way you'd get a 180/4 macro lens all the
|way to 1:1 for the fraction of a cost of a true 180/200 mm macro lens.
|Surely this could be done with the same excellent end-results as a true
|180-200 macro lens. And it would save my back just hauling around one lens.
You can get this in a sense by using the Vivitar 2X Macro
TC, although a Zuiko design would be optimal.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|