Scott Peden wrote:
> Thanks, I'll watch that,
You do understand what this is? It is only needed for the two old,
manual aperture macro lenses, 20/3.5 and 38/3.5.
They were replaced for good reasons with the 20/2 and 38/2.8, neither of
which needs this adapter plate.
As Dean, the list entomologist, recently posted:
> I've said it a couple times
> before: if you want to photograph insects, the 38/2.8 OM macro lens is
> unmatched. It's totally in a class by itself. Three examples of bug
> shots using the 38/2.8 are at
> http://s124.photobucket.com/albums/p15/Dean_Hansen/Aquaticinsects/.
> While not exactly effortless, those shots would have been impossible
> with the 38/3.5. I'd recommend holding off on buying the 38/3.5 at any
> price and wait for a reasonable example of the 38/2.8 to come up. The
> latter is ten times the lens, at least in terms of usability, of the
> former.
I assume similar things are true of the 20/2 vs. 20/3.5. In addition,
those who have used them have said here that the 20/3.5 is either
already already entering diffraction limited territory wide open or
simply an inferior design to the 20/2 - not as sharp.
So this may be something you don't need unless you already have one of
the manual lenses.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|