On 4/20/2016 11:50 AM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Time will tell Moose writes:
...
Now that you mention it I recall the Nykon CU lenses referred to in his earlier
books. I was reviewing whether to buy the new incarnation
John Shaw's Guide to Digital Nature Photography and noted the exclusive more
recent use of the 500D:
http://tinyurl.com/hu2ork5
Ah, the problem with that link is that pages are missing, so the pp is
truncated. Here's the whole thing:
"The 500D is a very high-quality piece of glass and right now is the only
close-up diopter I
would recommend. Nikon used to make +1.5 and +3 close-up diopters in both 52mm
(called 3T and 4T, respectively) and 62mm (5T and 6T, respectively) filter
sizes; while
these are discontinued, they can be found on eBay, although generally at
grossly inflated
prices. When last marketed by Nikon, they were about $50 each, but the current
prices on
eBay are hovering around $200. Get the Canon 500D."
Otherwise, it's a much shortened version, only slightly changed, of the Supplemental Lenses section from "Closeups in
Nature"
So it's clear that he has changed his recommendation on the basis of availability, and some consideration of price. What
he doesn't say is why he has also changed his own personal use. It would have been nice if he'd weighed in on IQ. He may
consider them equal, and have changed based on sizes available. He follows the above pp with an illustration of a 77 mm
500D mounted on a 67 mm filter thread lens using a step ring. Obviously less likely to cause trouble than stepping up a
62 mm Nikon C-U lens.
It's interesting to me that he doesn't mention the FL change of many contemporary, internal focus lenses, which impacts
both C-U lenses and tubes.
I must say the b'fly photogs in our group sometimes use the rather new Canyon
100-400 II L on a modest amount of extension with superb results. They have
the highest yield of excellent portrait type shots along with twin fill
flash--they can't get the flash off axis though. Their keeper rate is 4 fold
mine.
It may be useful to remember that I'm not a flutterby photographer, in any serious or intentional sense. I am relatively
critter agnostic, shooting whatever I happen to notice in my vicinity that will stand still for a few moments.
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=California/Anza-Borrego&image=_A004526croofm.jpg> (Check
out the map link.)
For example, Saturday we were walking the nearby botanic garden of Calif. indigenous flora when some rather darkish
flutterbys were flying around in mating dance pairs. I waited a bit in the hopes that one might settle down for a
portrait. One did land, but only for a few moments and it was so "het up" that it was fluttering the whole time. I
imagine a true FBP would have stayed much longer, in hope, camera ready.
And I'm also just not interested in futzing with a bunch of flash gear in the field, which is apparently de rigueur for
this sport. :-)
Some were former birders--often referred to a "birders gone bad," or "going over to
the dark side," if they pursue moths.
Now that's funny!
I have not seen anyone report on the Panny/Leica 100-400 use on
extension--perhaps it behaves very well.
Entirely possible, likely, even, given my excellent experience with the 75-300. I just haven't gotten around to trying
that. As you know, I'm not much for careful, formal testing. The lens arrived on a Wed afternoon, I took one shot, to
make sure it worked, then it was off the next morning to the wilds, where I tried out several things, keeping no notes .
. .
I'm pretty convinced it wouldn't be safe the way I use the lens in the field with the plastic mount tubes I have. Even
the smaller, lighter, shorter 75-300 causes a small gap to appear at the top of the tube to body or lens to tube
connection. I suspect that's just the springs of the mount compressing, but those tubes just don't strike me as up to
the mechanical challenge of the 100-400. I hadn't checked recently, but now see that metal mount tubes with good reviews
are available much cheaper than when I last looked.
So I guess I'm to have some sort of C-U lens vs. extension tube shoot out. :-)
Curiously I remember pinging Tammy tech support and they said the Tammy 80-200/2.8
performs better with the "matched optics " TC's then with extension--go figure.
The 90/2.5 certainly worked well with their 'matched' TC.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/Tam902.5/>
I don't recall using it on the 80-200/2.8. Why not? Perhaps because I found that the tripod mount flexed slightly, and
doubling the FL would just make the problem worse?? Or I did, and don't remember?
What I envision as an optimal scenario is a Moose armed with the new 100-400 on extension
meandering about the garden in pursuit of a smallisth flutterby (with a Pliny the Elder
in the other hand so it didn't feel like "work")
Just had one Friday, didn't feel like work . . .
and report back with the results.
Anxiously awaiting further reports of any sort, Mike
Patience, Grasshopper, it's coming.
Too Much on His Plate Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
|
