>
> Too bad. Very well, I might come by one some day, or maybe I can
> figure out some other solution.
>
The tripod ring on the 300/4.5 is, in my opinion, optional. There are times
when the camera/lens combination rides better on the len's tripod mount and
other times when it does better on the camera's tripod mount. You have to
consider the leverage. For example, when the 300/4.5 is used on an OM body
without any motordrive or winder, the len's tripod mount is advantageous as
the center of gravity is pretty much centered. But when you have a
film-advance device attaches, the center fo gravity shifts rearward quite a
bit.
Olympus' lens mounts are quite robust and the 300/4.5 really isn't that
heavy of a lens. You can get away without using the ring when you consider
that it is also a lesser-used lens and not something that is usually welded
to the camera.
One reason why the rings are missing is because they get in the way most of
the time. Olympus engineers kinda screwed up in designing the OM system to
be so compact because you can't mount the lens on a typical tripod while
using a motordrive. The motordrive comes into contact with the tripod head
and there isn't enough clearance on some heads to shoot the camera
horizontally. More times than not, when using the 300/4.5, I use the
camera's mount instead.
BTW, other rotating rings from some Brand-X lenses fit on the 300/4.5.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|