>>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.
But extension means greater diffraction at smaller apertures. Everything has
it's pros and cons.
>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.
>
>Ulf Westerberg
Still a good option, but I doubt they would make two separate 2X convertors.
Don't let this stop us though.
< 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 >
|