Hi Tomoko. Thanks for your tests and for sharing the results.
I have reported some time ago to this list about my experience with
the IS converters.
To quote from memory about the results - I think the B-300 does a
great job on the 135/2.8 and on the 200/4. Not on any other lenses I
tried. 85mm and shorter give vignetting. 100/2 is acceptable but not
as good as the 135/2.8
I have never tried the 49mm A-200 on the 135/3.5 or 200/5 - but these
might give good results as well. Conversion factor is only slightly
smaller (1.5x vs. 1.7x).
Frank van Lindert
Utrecht NL.
On Thu, 13 May 1999 13:05:42 -0400, "Tomoko Yamamoto"
<tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>I wrote yesterday:
>>The B300 is matched to the 180mm end of the zoom on the IS-3, so the 50/55mm
>>focal length may be too wide. With the 85mm/2, the result was acceptable so
>>far.
>
>I had a second look at my quick test of the B300 effects on three Zuiko lenses,
>85mm/2, 200mm/4, and 200mm/5, which I did Tuesday last week.
>
>I used my Bogen 3205 and 3029 (pan-tilt head) for the support. The camera was
>my OM-4T (with a 2-4 screen). I used Velvia for this test. Since I had only
>several frames left over from another test, I hope that you should understand
>that the results are tentative. I used the aperture set at f8 for speed since
>a
>couple of boys in the neighborhood were moving around in my frame. I metered
>the scene with aperture-priority auto or spot metering. A step-up ring of
>49-55
>was used for the 85mm/2 and the 200mm/5. The slides were projected on the wall
>to 22x33 inches or 55.9cm x 83.8cm.
>
>The subject was the next block of my neighborhood shot from the front porch of
>my house. The sun was coming out intermittently that afternoon. The area is
>about 30m or 100ft away from the corner of my front porch. The farthest house
>in the frame with the 200mm tele is estimated to be 90m or more away.
>
>Examining my shots (only two) with the 85mm/2 w/wo the B300, I have now spotted
>vignetting at the right-hand corners. I don't see vignetting on the left side,
>and I don't understand why. Overall it looks good, so if you are to use this
>combo using print film and have a look at the resultant print only, you may not
>notice any vignetting.
>
>When I compared my shots of the same area with the 200mm/4 and the 200mm/5 at
>f/8 without the B300 attached, it is hard to tell any difference between the
>shots.
>
>Now with the B300 attached, the 200mm/4 +B300 shot was somewhat underexposed
>than the 200mm/5+B300 shot. The framing got changed slightly as well. I don't
>remember what I did at this point.
>
>The overall sharpness of the entire frame is better with the 200mm/4+B300 combo
>than with the 200mm/5+B300. The more overexposed 200mm/5+B300 has a street
>sign
>at the bottom edge of the frame which appears a bit softer and the leaves on
>one
>corner are not sharp presumably due to inadequate shutter speed. On the other
>hand in the 200mm/5+B300 shot, the same leaves were underexposed so that I
>could
>not tell whether they were sharp or not. Both shots produced sharp images in
>the center judged by projection of the slides and the degree of sharpness in
>the
>lettering on the car license plates. No visible vignetting in the 200mm/5+B300
>which has a step-up ring to adjust the mount diameter.
>
>I hope that my results would stimulate others to do their own testing.
>
>Tomoko Yamamoto
>mailto:tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx
>http://www.charm.net/~tomokoy/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|