The tubes will of course limit the focus range at distance. The manual
tubes do not have the depth of field button as the f stop closes so
does the visible depth of field increase. This is actually what happens
if you use the automatic system and the depth of field button. All the
button does is stop down the lense so you look through the actual f
stop. Just like on early 35mm cameras.
You might also try a set of diopter lenses that attach to the front of
the lense. They work well under many conditions and they do not limit
the normal function of the lense. I've used them in a pinch for many
years, including a +10 and they have been fine. Certainly the 'proper'
close up equipment will ultimately produce better results but diopter
attachments are much less expensive and do produce very credible
results with care. They do have depth of field limitations though.
Another alternative is the reversal ring that allows you to turn the
normal lense around for close up photography. The lense becomes a
manual but the optics are solely that of the lense.
I have the Zuiko 50mm f3.5 macro and really like to use it. It offers
great flexibility as it will also replace the normal lense allowing for
wider use when its attached. It does not macro in as tight as the tubes
or the diopter lenses though but it does get right in there. Yes you
can put a tube behind the 50 macro.
On Jan 24, 2005, at 11:57, Matthew Born wrote:
> OK, I'm hoping to kick off a little thread here. As I stare at 12
> inches of
> snow, I'm pondering fun thoughts of spending money I don't have. I'm
> interested in some close up photography, a thing I've never done, and
> I'm
> looking for input on a couple of things. The bellows and focusing
> stage and
> all that is probably out, at least until I get hooked. So...the
> extension
> tubes...are the manual tubes really a pain? And how exactly does one
> stop
> down to focus? Do you use the depth of field button? Is there any
> reason to
> spend the extra dough on Olympus tubes vs. the Vivitar ones? I assume
> there
> isn't any difference in the quality, since there's no glass involved,
> but I
> do see that the Vivitar variety are different lengths. They sure are
> cheaper.
>
> And then there's the issue of macro lenses. Recent comments really
> pushed me
> towards the 50 3.5 -- I've seen a few comments from folks who prefer
> it over
> the 50 MIJ even for normal use. I'd like to hear more about that as
> I've
> found the MIJ 50 to be a superb lens. And what's the scoop on the 50 f2
> macro lens? It scores very well on Gary Reese's lens chart, and it
> certainly
> commands a premium. Would one ever couple an extension tube with a
> macro
> lens? The only macro lens I ever had was some crappy zoom many years
> ago,
> and I completely ignored it.
>
> Is that enough questions?
>
> Matthew Born
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
________________________
RT McFetridge
Ottawa, Canada
E: rmcfet@xxxxxxxxxx
E: rmcfet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 613 692 4896
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|