Sounds like asking for trouble to me, both mechanically and optically.
You can get a really good macro like the
Tamron/Tokina/Vivitar/90/2.5/2.8s or Kiron 105/2.8 for about the same
price as a 65-116 and get something optically designed for the purpose.
Even the cheap little Cosina/Vivitar/Phoenix/?? 100/3.5 macro will give
much better macro performance than a high ratio zoom not designed for
close-up performance hung on an extension tube,. It is faster, much
sharper, and, although the 100/3.5 has a fair amount of pincushion
distortion, it probably has less linear distortion than the zoom/tube combo.
The Zuiko 50/3.5 is also an excellent macro lens available at reasonable
prices. I don't like it for nature shooting because of the short working
distance and rather poor bokeh.
The combo you ask about is sort of like using a tire/tyre pump as a leaf
blower, a mismatch of design capability and use. It'll do the job, but a
considerable price in convenience and results.
Moose
Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
Hi Moose,
While we're at it, what do you think of coupling the 85~250/5 to a 65~116mm.
Any experience anyone? I realize its a rather awkward combo, but apart from
that...
< 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 >
|