Forwarded message follows:
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 22:37:29 -0700
From: Norma Foltz <nfoltz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Oben Candemir <dunya@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: olympus-digest V2 #2399
References: <20010510065814.8013.qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Oben,
I feel the same way about my 55 mm f1.2. It has has given me some of my
favorite images. I've frequently used it with the Vivitar zoom extension
doubler and a T10 Ring Flash. That combination gave me an "impossible"
image once of a baby owl behind a thick metal mesh. Pressed right up to the
metal mesh with the Ring Flash at f1.2 only the baby owls face was in the
image without a trace of the metal mesh cage. I haven't seen the picture
in awhile but when I find it I'll put it up on the web somewhere.
As far as fungus and radioactivity goes there just isn't enough
radioactivity to even be measurable by anything except the most sensitive
of instruments. I tried with several standard Geiger counters and could
not read anything above "background radiation". There is simply not enough
radioactivity to deter fungus. The only thing you can do is to keep the
lens clean and dry.
Okay everybody I'm going on a cross country trip and my wife told me to
bring all of my Olympus Gear and Tripods ! I'm planning to shoot mostly
Kodak Gold 200. I'm liking this film more and more these days because it
has delivered some stunning 8 X 10 enlargements with the 50 mm f3.5 macro
lens.
-- Hank Hogan <hogant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://flzhgn.home.mindspring.com/indexc.htm
< 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 >
|