Dylan Sutton <dsut4392@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> moved upon the face of the 'Net and
spake thusly:
> >Yeah. An M42 lens is a bit smaller. I've heard rumours of a magic
> >M42 adaptor that fits *inside* the OM mount, but never seen one.
>
> I'll have a rummage around a few shops before I hack up my old 28mm...
The m42 adaptor with lens is quite common, but may cause vignetting.
I'd love a lensless one if anyone finds a source. I don't even care if I
lose infinity focus.
> >Why not find a crappo OM teleconverter and saw it in half to get the
>
> Because I don't need to - neither the OM 10 nor 28mm mushroom farm ("Focal"
> brand, bought _new_ from K-mart for A$22.95) are of conceivable use to
> anyone in their current state.
>
OK, understood. You mean "dead with maggots" dead, not "currently not
working but theoretically fixable" dead.
>
> If I'm already converting, I'd be better off just converting to OM mount
> and not using any adaptors, wouldn't I?
Depends on mechanical difficulty. At least an off the shelf part will
have exact right angles where they're needed, and not wobble.
>
> Couldn't I reverse any sort of lens of the right filter size, regardless of
> mount or focal length? Take pity, you're confusing me with all these
> options!
Um, yeah. Sorry. Any lens reversed would do. An m42 lens would fit
both ways, and be cheap because they're out of fashion.
cjb
--
------------------ Linux hackers do it in protected mode -------------------
| Christopher Biggs - Software Engineer, Stallion Technologies, Australia |
| chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx - CEO, J.Random Deadguy Institute for Weird Studies |
------- Mathematics and alcohol don't mix --- Never drink and derive -------
< 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 >
|