Me:
I'm also curious about the 85/2 since it's smallish and promoted as
being corrected for close up use. I'm wondering how well corrected when
pushed beyond its designed minimum focus range?<<
Gary R.:
Probably not bad for 3D macro subjects, versus 2D which need flat field.
Be sure and keep the helical racked out and mix or match auto extension
tubes to focus, otherwise you are defeating the abberration correction
acheived by the floating elements.<
Ahh, interesting. I've been puzzled about what's appropriate when using
other-than-macro lenses with various close up devices (close up diopter
lenses, extension tubes, Vivitar's macro focusing 2x teleconverter). For
example, is it considered best to leave a normal lens focused at infinity
for best results and move the camera or subject to within focus range? Or
is it okay to use the lens' focus mechanism to get maximum magnification
when combined with diopters, extension tubes, etc.? I've never read a
definitive answer on this. My own informal tests of 2D objects doesn't
reveal any particular difference, but I may be less critical than some.
G.R.:
...new manual focusing 60mm ? macro for Canon EOS. While it works from 5:1
to 1:1 (5x to 1x), it is clearly optimized for 4:1 Kind of tells us how
hard it is to design a macro lens for a wide magnification ratio.<
That reminds me ... with a lens like Vivitar's old 90mm f/2.8 macro (the
non-Series 1 version) that goes 1:1 without an extension tube - does this
type of design inherently involve either a loss of effective focal length,
effective aperture, or both as it's extended to maximum magnification?
Again, I haven't been able to find a definitive answer anywhere.
Lex
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< 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 >
|