on 2004/05/23 10:10 PM, Mickey Trageser at Gad-Zuiks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Thanks Andrew. Would it be a good idea to take a rear cap and cut it out to
> provide some protection? Ooooo, and maybe mount a UV on it!
Sounds like a good idea to me.
> Is there any point to trying to stop down the reversed lens? Does the focus
> ring position matter on the reversed lens?
1) Not that I know of. Try it and report back!
2) The glass stays still and the mount moves. If you rack it all the way
back it provides some of protection to the rear element... but I like
your first idea better.
> I have a 100/2.8 and a 135/3.5. I assume primes are better. I also have a
> 35/2.8 and 24/2.8. So, the 24 on the 100 would be roughly the same as a 50
> on a 200? What about aperture penalties? How dark is the viewfinder?
1) I haven't tried a zoom, but that just means I haven't yet. Magnification
should change quickly with changes in focal length, so it would probably
function as a coarse control, with focus as the fine control.
2) Using the 200 and the 50, I read a blank white surface with and without.
With the lens on it lost only 1 stop. I need to think about why.
> And finally, when you put that 50 on the 200, how far from the rear element
> of the reversed lens is the subject?
About 35mm - not a lot of working distance.
This would be a good use for a 50/1.4 with broken focus or aperture, but
good glass.
Andrew
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|