> I'm aware of basic extension rings, bellows and specialty macro lenses but I
> don't understand the pros & cons of these to go further. Do my OM bodies
> retain meter coupling with extension rings ? (seems cheapest).
if they are *auto* rings yes.
> time investment in bellows or a macro lens better ?
A macro lens is better. It gives you best performance from infinity to 1/2
or 1/1. A bellows is useful expecially if you have to go beyond this limit.
Of course if you know you are going to stay between 1/2 and 2/1 I'd say 80mm
macro with either bellow or (better) Auto Ext Tube.
> aperature of a macro best for general purpose ?
Fram 50mm to 105mm as for focal lenght. From f/8 to F/16 as for apertures,
but sometimes you will need to close more.
> integrated into normal prime lenses and some medium zoom telephotos; which
> is better ?
Prime's. But this is generally limited to 1/4 or 1/3 magnification.
You can get a Zuiko 50 3,5 exc+/mint- for $150 (more or less) from ebay or
other classifieds sites. I think it is the better deal considering the
cost/benefit ratio. You'd prefer the MC version of course.
If you plan using auto tubes, I'd suggest to use your primes with them. A
short auto tube may be a good idea with most teles to get closer to faces in
portraits. The bad news is you loose the close focus correction (floating
group), which may be even a good thing in a portrait.
BTW if you have enlarger lenses you can get wonderful macro results but of
course you loose on-lens-focus-control and auto-diaphragm. May be a good
idea on bellows or tubes.
BTW again you can have the cheapest way to get macro with a "coupling ring"
to stack your lenses (fi the 28 on the 50 with a 49mm coupling ring and the
50 on the 135 with also a 49 to 55 adapter ring (or is a 55 to 49?)).
Marco
< 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 >
|