"Real" macro lenses are often used for slide or other flat matter
copying, so yes, they do try to make them flat-field.
The others should just be called "close-focusing" - but sly makers call
them "macro.
tOM
On Friday, June 21, 2002 at 0:58, Winsor Crosby
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "Re: [OM] Zuiko 21/3.5 test images" saying:
> Isn't the reason for macro lenses, besides close focus, a flat field for
> copy, reproduction work? Normal lenses do not usually make good copy
> lenses because their fields are curved which is not a problem in
> ordinary photography. If that was an ordinary sized map then the 21/3.5
> must have been at the minimum focus distance. This is a super wide angle
> lens, not a macro lens or a telephoto. -- Winsor Crosby Long Beach,
> California
------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur -----------------
,__@ Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115
_-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*) ICQ:57647974 N45.412 W75.714
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws are the spider's webs which,
if anything small falls into them they ensnare it,
but large things break through and escape.
--Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
< 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 >
|