I seem to be full of questions lately. There are two parts to this, and
the question is at the end, so bear with me.
Last summer, as a result of an offer I couldn?t refuse, I picked up a 2X-A
NIB for $115. I didn?t need it, didn?t really want it, but it was OM stuff
and I succumbed again to ?The Disease.? I don?t have any of the Zuikos
it?s designed to be used with, which are thoughtfully enumerated in an
engraving around the converter itself: 100/2.8, 135/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/4,
200/5, 100-200/5, as if warning the unwary not to engage in unauthorized
lens couplings. But, undaunted and optimistic, I tried it with some Zuikos
that I do have: 100/2, 180/2.8, 300/4.5, 400/6.3, 500/8, and
35-105/3.5-4.5.
A bit of darkroom work making prints of equal-size images taken with the
same lens, one made with the teleconverter, one without and enlarged to
equal image size, shows clearly that the result using the teleconverter is
superior, if for no reason other than there?s less grain in an 8x10 or
larger print, and for obvious reasons if shooting transparencies (which I
mostly do) where cropping is not really practical. I can?t recommend it
with the 500/8, but with the other lenses, it beats blow-ups and blown-up
slide dupes fairly handily.
Well, obviously, with the lenses I have, I don?t need the thing. There?s
no point in turning the 100/2 into a 200/4 when I?ve got the 180/2.8, or
the 180/2.8 into a 360/5.6 when I?ve got the 300/4.5 and the 400/6.3, and
so on. And that brings me now to the rest of this.
When out and about with photography as a principal objective, I usually
haul more gear than a mean man would load on a borrowed mule, including all
the aforementioned lenses. But sometimes it?s necessary to get out of
sight of the SUV, and since I?m developing more and more of a hitch in my
git-along as I get older, I don?t do well carrying a heavy load a long
distance, so I am putting together a super light, super flexible kit that
will fit in the pockets of my fisherman's vest (which is better than any
high-priced photographer?s vest I?ve come across -- $50 from Cabela?s).
So far, this outfit consists of the following:
OM-4Ti, with neck strap, 1 lb. 5 1/2 oz. (with motor drive, 2 lb. 12
oz.)
19-35/3.5-4.5 Phoenix lens, with caps and hood, 11 1/4 oz.
35-105/3.5-4.5 Zuiko lens, with caps and hood, 1 lb. 3/4 oz.
2X-A teleconverter, with caps, 8 oz.
Small Cullmann tripod, 1 lb. 2 oz.
Filters, cable release, extra film, etc., 1 lb.
At less than 6 lbs. (less than 8 lbs. with motor drive) this gives a focal
length range of 19mm to 210mm. For just another 1 lb. 9 3/4 oz. I can add
the 65-200/4 Zuiko and extend the range to 400mm, assuming the 2X-A works
as well with this lens as with the others, and still be under 10 lbs., even
with motor drive, and less than 8 lbs. without.
There?s one problem here, though. Unlike every other Zuiko I?ve got, the
65-200 has something strange on its back end that keeps it from coupling
with the 2X-A. There are two protuberances (I like that word) that no
other lens has. For a look at what I?m talking about, see
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=135271&a=13487025&p=51881529. The
65-200 is on the right, the 35-105 on the left.
Now the question: Can anybody think of a reason why I shouldn?t take Dremel
in hand and grind these things down a little? About 1/16 or 1/8 in. is all
it would take for the teleconverter to fit. Of course, the lens would be
fully protected in a plastic baggie and masking tape during this operation.
Was this lens made by somebody else for Olympus? Why are these ?horns?
there and on none of the other Zuikos? It?s a mystery to me, and I?m
de-horning the thing this weekend unless somebody can tell me why I
shouldn?t.
Walt Wayman
< 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 >
|