It's not a practical use for this lens. You end up with the
equivalent of a camera with a fixed-focus lens covering a field of
view about 30mm wide in focus less than two inches from the front
element. It certainly wasn't meant to be used this way but was
intended for bellows or extension tubes. It's just that unlike
the 80/4 and 135/4.5, it doesn't have that protruding rear element
that makes it impossible to attach it to a camera body.
Like I said, I was being nit-picky about the statement it couldn't
be mounted on a camera. Actually, you could probably put the 80/4
or 134/4.5 on an OM-1 if you locked up the mirror. There would be
no joy in this exercise, but I suppose they could be physically
attached. :-)
Walt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact
us." -- Hobbes
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Adam Long" <adamlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2003 11:01:57 -0000
>
>>Well, technically, being really nit-picky about it, the 38/2.8
>>can be mounted directly on a camera.
>
>What mag. does that give, Walt? Any vignetting? I guess it would
>extend the working difference a little without the extension.
>
>Adam (still saving for any of the above, currently 'stacking'
>lenses instead)
>
< 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 >
|