At 18:05 24-04-03 -0400, Walt Wayman wrote:
>Should work great, maybe even better than the 300/2.8. The weight
>will be the problem, though. I'm not certain, but I bet the 250/2
>is heavier than the 300/2.8.
Yes, the 250/2 weighs a lot but it's on it's own tripod mount. The weight
levering on the extension tube would actually be the camera/winder/flash.
>Of course, that's just a guess, 'cause not only don't I have any
>of the Zuiko f/2's longer than the 100/2, but I ain't ever even
>seen one. Maybe Tom can let me have the other 180/2 so I'll know
>what it's like and won't feel deprived and underprivileged.
>
>Enviously,
>Walt
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: Matt BenDaniel <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:02:22 -0400
>
>>Walt,
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>I have a 250/2 which focuses to 7 feet. Should I try some
>>extension on that?
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>< 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 >
--
Matt BenDaniel
matt@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://starmatt.com
< 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 >
|