I thought the older Tamron 90/2.5 would also have the fat-ass problem.
http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/a2-lens/52b.htm
-jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:52 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: which marco flash?
>
> The 2.8 has 55mm filter threads, and, admittedly, attaching the macro
flashes does require the use of a couple of empty 55mm filter rings to
extend the threads so the flash can clear that unnecessarily fat-ass front
end, but this workaround cost $2 and took 5 minutes to make. And besides,
the two rings act as a mini lens hood when using the macro flashes, a bonus
that may not be of much help, but it sure don't seem to hurt nothin'.
>
> Walt
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > the older F2.5 tamron is faster, better built than the 2.8 and is only
> > 49mm so no problem attaching a macro flash
> >
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|