On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Moose, taking questions for Chuck, replied:
> On 9/15/2013 8:49 AM, DZDub wrote:
> > ... Chuck, A 60mm DZ is the equivalent of a 120/2.8 in film terms. That
> would have been considered very generous in
> > working distance back in the day, almost as good as the legendary
> 135/4.5 with a great deal more speed and brightness.
>
> Well, not really; that's one thing that doesn't scale that way. It's still
> a 60 mm lens, whatever image size it covers,
> and the respective subject and object distances for a given magnification
> remain the same.
Hey, who's talking to you, mister?
Seriously, thanks for the explanation. I figured there was something I
wasn't getting. I nodded off in the lecture on how things are and aren't
equivalent to film with the smaller sensor size.
Now I wonder if you will tell me if Chuck is actually looking for a really
good close-focusing long zoom (since he seems to like your former favorite,
the 14-150). That's what I would have guessed. Until I got a DZ macro, I
tended to use the DZ 50-200 for close focusing if I wanted or needed the
working distance. The bokeh is sometimes OK, but not always predictable.
I was surprised at how close the DZ 18-180 is able to focus. I think I
recall that you got some very close -focused shots with the 14-150. Am I
remembering correctly?
Joel (not always completely inattentive) W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|