Hi,
Sorry for the late reply, but works has been like crazy over here the last
few days, so I couldn't spend too much time on the list mails.
Then, William, I specifically CC'ed you on this message as often you can
give factual data, I believe most of the matters have been resolved now, but
perhaps you can add a bit to the discussion about using the 100/2 and/or the
135/2.8 as a poor man's 135/4.5 macro lens for "tele macro work"?
That said, let's give a few remarks to the several replies that came to the
previous messages sent:
[Winsor]
I am afraid that I got lost in all that. Is it that the correction
made by the floating lens element for close focus is not correct when
the distance is increased by the length of the bellows?
That is one of the theories, however, it now sounds more likely after all
that a lens that does have close-up correction should be set to use this
correction when possible.
[Rudy:]
For the 2/85 there is a footnote, he says/explains:
"The 2/85 lens has to be used at 0.85m. The close focus distance will
kick in the floating element effect. All othe lenses have to be used at
infenity" (remember this table was only for 'normal' lenses !)
I guess this statement then goes for all lenses that have a close up
floating element group.
err, hmm, I found a picture and the title fori/against? the 3.5/50 at
close distance on page108.
This is in chapter "all about slide duplication"
The picture is in subpartwhere different duplication films are presented.
The title says" "OM-2N with Zuiko Auto-Macro 3.5/50 in 1:1 . Focus of lens
at 23cm close distance. This will kick in floating element effect" The
picture shows the OM2N with bellow, 3.5/50 (at 23cm) slide duplicator and
T32
Interesting!
This section is different in my book!!!
I had a short look for your 4/80 sentence with the exclamation mark, but
didn't found it - not even the context ...
Olafo, would you please give me the chapter you found this one.
(so I can check this again)
(Are we talking about the same book ? ;-)
Nope, we're not talking about the same book. From Hans I understood that
there are various different versions of "Olympus books" written by Pangerl.
Mine is a 1982 Dutch translation based on two German books, one is (I
believe) part 7 of "Die welt des OM systems" and the other is a book about
the line of OM-10 cameras. Hans also pointed out the the combination of the
original two volumes has considerably more pages than the book I have
(which, BTW, is called "Het Grote Olympus Boek", meaning: "The Big Olympus
Book"). Some sections have been changed quite a lot though: the slide
duplication section (which is where the remark about infinity for the 50/3.5
and/or 80/4 appears) in my book, for example, has much more information than
is printed in Hans' version...
[C.H. Ling]
O.k., the first part you wrote about setting the 50/3.5 to close focusing is
clear now...
For 85/2 I have never use or test it with bellow, but I believe every
lens with close focus correction should be set to min focusing
distance if shooting higher than its max mag. For slide duplication, I
think the best tool is need, especially a good resolution and low
distortion. If you can't get a 80/4 may be a third party slide
duplicator will work better than a non 1:1 Zuiko.
I think the 50/3.5 works pretty o.k. for slide duplication, so for those
purposes I will stick to using that lens. The reason why I was asking for
experiences in using the 100/2 and the 135/2.8 on the bellows, was not for
slide duplication, but rather for finding out how well it works as a poor
man's 135/4.5. Did you perhaps ever test any of those lenses that way?
[Hans]
With any other non-macro, non standard lens you try on the bellows you
should follow the same principles - leave the lens at infinity when it has
no close-focus correction, set it at close distance when it has, like for
instance when using the 85/2, and reverse the lens when you exceed the 1:1
range.
Clear. According to "a certain Hans' excellent e-SIF" ;) the 100/2 actually
also has a close focus correction group, and the 135/2.8 has not. I would
expect better results from the 100/2 than from the 135/2.8 in a bellows
set-up then.
[Frieder]
I think this is a misunderstandig, maybe caused due to translation.
Now, im my german editon of this book this statement refers only to
the 50-mm standart- (!)- lenses, which should set to infinity. For ease of
setting, and there is no gain with tins lenses.
Slide copying with the 3.5/50 Macro is discussed in the paragrah before, as
a better possiblity. He advices to set the focusing barrel to 0.3m, to get
the best gain from the close focusing mecanism. But the bellows must be
aranged in a more complicated way.
O.k., so Pangerl definitely corrected this mistake then (or alternatively a
mistake got into the book I have)...
Thanks too for your information about the OM Magazines!
[All]
Sorry for the long post, I think the matter has been cleared up now though!
Cheers,
Olafo
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.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 >
|