That's an interesting tidbit. So 180-20%=144mm, 200-20%=160mm?
Do you have anymore details on this? I'm surprised that the 50 & 90 fall
into the same category. If you put a 50/2 or 90/2 on a bellows focused at
infinity, would it suffer from the same focal length reduction? Or is this
a characteristic of the changes in relative positions of the lens elements
to accomplish close focusing in a helicoid design?
BTW, all the long focal-length Macros mentioned are internal focusing
designs.
Skip
****** I M P O R T A N T R E P L Y I N F O ************
Please adddress ALL offlist messages to skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
This hotmail.com email address is ONLY used for this mailing list
subscription and I will probably not notice any private messages addressed
here.
***********************************************************
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 85 f2 vs Zuiko 90 f2 Macro
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:18:05 -0700
Skip W. writes:
<< I wish that Olympus had made a long focus Macro like Nikon's 200/4,
or Canon's 180/3.5, or Sigma's 180/3.5 Macro. >>
If those are internal focus designs, they will loose about 200f their
focal legth when close focused, as do the 50mm and 90mm Zuiko Macros.
The 135mm f/4.5 Zuiko isn't internal focus, so it's at 135mm when up
close.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
< 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 >
|