At 10:02 7/20/01, Olafo wrote:
Hi,
This is a reply to a message that was sent several weeks ago. I noticed I
hadn't added anything to it yet:
> I suspect they're too long for the 21mm lenses too. You might be able to
> squeak by with a 12mm or 14mm tube on a 24mm or 28mm lens, but you'll be
> very, very close to the subject at infinity focus on the lens. This was
> one of the first things learned when trying a tube with the short lenses
> (18mm, 24mm and 35mm). It's very easy to bang the front element into the
> subject material trying to move in close enough to focus. (Fortunately
with
> flowers it doesn't damage the lens.)
Yes, after having seen the shot you sent in for TOPE 6, I too had "a shot"
(pun intended) at it, and mounted my 24/2.8 on the Hama 13mm extension tube
(IOW: I mounted my shortest lens on my shortest extension tube), and the
result can be seen on my TOPE 6 runners up page (
http://www.millennics.com/olympus/tope/tope6/tope6_ojgextra.html - picture
nr. 13). Indeed, as John mentioned in his message, I was VERY close to the
flower.
Cheers!
Olafo
Nice rose shot! I found the radical perspective in a macro made using a
tube on a wide angle lens gives a 3-D quality to the image not found when
using longer lenses. If you keep doing shots like this, I'll bet you
eventually end up with a 21/2 or an 18/3.5 and a 7mm auto-tube in the arsenal.
BTW, your 24/2.8 shows some nice bokeh in the background on this one too!
-- John
< 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 >
|