The minimum extension of the bellows is 36 mm. Neither lens will be able
to focus anywhere near infinity, but will be able to focus closer than
mounted directly on the camera. Unless you are going beyond 1:1, the
Kiron doesn't make any sense on the bellows. It's also all metal
construction with a double helicoid and so a rather large, heavy lens,
possibly awkward hanging out on the end of the bellows. Which Tamron 90?
The f2.8 version is about the same deal as the Kiron. The two f2.5
versions only focus to 1:2 and Tamron sells an extention tube
specifically for use with them from 1:2 to 1:1. With the bellows, you
would get a greater range than that in both directions. With a shorter
fl and only a single helicoid, they are smaller and lighter than the Kiron.
An easy way to get excellent results on the cheap with the bellows is
with an enlarging lens. I keep thinking I'll get the 105/5.6 Componon on
my bellows one day, but haven't reeally checked out what adapter combo
I'll need. Come to think of it, one can just mount it in a body cap.
Some third party OM caps have a nice flat midsection. You lose auto
diaphram, but for much macro work that isn't a big deal.
Moose
Bob Docherty wrote:
>............Do any of you denizens know how well a
>Tamron 90mm or Kiron 105mm work on an auto bellows setup?
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|