>
>Not the stock lens, Chris, in fact not an Olympus lens (!!) but a Sigma
>135-400.
>
Ooooooh! I've recently used a Sigma 28-85mm lens on the E-500, and except
for a slight problem of a couple of iris leaves sticking when cold it's a very
nice walkaround lens. The macro only goes down to 1:5.5, which is of little
value for me. I need to have 1:3 or so before there's any real advantage over
a non-macro lens.
>
>Zuiko Digital lenses produce equally attractive images:
>
>http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/phemy/Springtime-in-Infra-red.jpg.html
>was taken with a 14-54 ZD while
>
>http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/phemy/From Beinn Eighe.jpg.html
>was taken with a 40-150 ZD - although this image does not have the
>resolution and tonality of the Sigma images, more than likely
>because I had not, at that stage, properly understood how best to
>use the IR body - meter in LV using the histogram, compose in the >viewfinder,
>but leave the AF to find the correct IR focus (the
>viewfinder only hinders in this respect - maybe one day I will
>think about shimming it to suit IR).
>
I've been mindful of late to pay attention to the IR offset on the
wide/telephoto zooms. Of the ones I have here, those by Tokina seem to have
the least amount of offset. My methodology is a bit labourious, first focusing
with visible light, adjusting the focus for the indicated IR offset, adding the
filter, then taking the TTL meter reading. I need to practice this when our
current wildfires are under control.
Chris
Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
