I forgot to mention that the 50/1.4 used for these shots was serial
number 1,089,751. I had in my head that the magic number for 1.4 lenses
was serial number > 1,100,000. But I have a note in my lens inventory
list that says it's actually > 1,085,000. I don't recall where that
comes from. My inventory list also says I own one with serial number
1,166,918 but I can't seem to find it. I have an old safe downstairs
where I have stored lenses when away. It has a small interior
compartment with a key lock. The key has long been lost and I
discovered the compartment locked recently... possibly bumped closed by
the main door. I hope the lens isn't in there. :-(
The 50/1.8 used in these shots was an MiJ version with serial number
3,753,996. The 50/3.5 macro is a silvernose 108,404.
Finally, after measuring the fully open blossom in the photos as being
about 30mm in diameter I realized that the supposedly 1:1 shot couldn't
be 1:1 since the diameter of the blossom should be larger than the
vertical height of the frame. I realized that I'd mis-read the
magnification scale. The actual magnification of the last shot is 1:1.5
rather than 1.1. Getting to 1:1 with the MFTC requires fully extending
the focusing ring on the lens and the use of a different scale.
ps: Using the 1.4 made focusing much easier than the other two lenses.
Chuck Norcutt
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Today I moved the crabapple blossoms indoors out of the wind. Using the
> Canon 5D I shot a bunch of photos using the Vivitar Macro Focusing
> Teleconverter at 1:5, 1:3, 1:2 and 1:1 with the OM Zuiko 50/1.4, Zuiko
> 50/1.8 and Zuiko macro 50/3.5. I shot the full range of apertures on
> the 50/1.4 but only used f/8 on the other two for comparisons.
>
> The bottom line is that there isn't a hill of beans between the 3 lenses
> (at least at f/8). I didn't compare beyond f/8 due to diffraction.
> There's little difference to be seen on the f/1.4 shots at f/11 and f/16
> vs. f/8. I think diffraction is taking away any increase in DOF.
>
> This is what they look like. Pardon the creases in the "sky". It's a
> blue shirt that wasn't large enough to get further away for better
> blurring. I'm tempted to clean up the "sky" in PhotoShop but, nah,
> never mind.
> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/Crabapple_blossoms_Vivitar_MFTC/>
>
> Any differences between these lenses is more than totally swamped by my
> errors in refocusing after changing lenses. I should have added a large
> crop of the 1:1 image. There's much more detail showing there than I
> ever saw with my eye.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Ken Norton wrote:
>>> I have a Vivitar 2X macro converter that I've never used. I discovered
>>> it on the bay about a year or two ago quite by accident and it was going
>>> for a low price. I guess I should give it a try... if I can focus it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Could you put it on the 5D and shoot some samples for us?
>>
>> 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/
|