Welcome back! How was Switzerland?
On 7/15/2016 2:18 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Flying Moose, AKA Lord of the Flies writes:
<<<The combination of PLeica @ 400 mm and 5T really is da bomb for live
shootin' of these little critters.
So are you using the PL with the diopters not at infinity?
Are you asking if I leave the lens focused at infinity and focus by moving closer/further from the subject? No, that's
just not practical with these tiny, mobile subjects.
I work to get close enough for infinity focus to work, then get at least a little closer, to allow the AF to work for
me. I do, on occasion, half press, then move slightly closer/further to move the focal plane subtly and/or focus bracket
for a stack.
I have been close enough as to exceed the close focus limit with the diopter, but not often. As with tubes, the focal
range is not very deep.
Many older zooms seemed to perform best with diopters used like that but no
clue with the PL 100-400.
I've not tried any formal tests closer than infinity focus. Because of the subjects, close to the longest working
distance is where I am most of the time.
Not sure if you tried your Minolta 0 lower power one but then using some of the
internal extension on the PL to achieve higher mag?
I suspect that "internal extension" isn't an accurate representation of what happens in this complex lens as it focuses.
Take a look at the LensRentals tear down of the Leica SL zoom. I don't imagine this one is that complex, but focusing
almost certainly involves movement of at least a couple of groups.
My first shots using the Minolta didn't impress. I've not gone back to revisit.
Again JS had said he did not like any diopter greater than 1.0 on a 300mm lens
(FF).
But which 1 or less diopter lens? And how would it work in practice with the PLeica? The 5T on 100-400 @ 400 is very,
very good. At least in the middle portion, which is all I care about for this kind of use, I don't think it gives
anything away to the lens alone. I'd like to find one that works, but am unsure how, or even if one exists.
I wrote before about my observational thought that the front and rear curvatures of elements might be related to
performance with this PLeica @ 400 mm. Hmmm, wandering mentally further afield, those lenses have far less effective
coatings that the 5T and 500D. Might the steeper curvatures been to avoid reflections between C-U lens and primary lens?
Perhaps PL Minolta diopter combo is better for lower mag but the lens itself
can go to 0.25 natively.
Normal close focus w/o diopter lens and infinity focus with it are close enough that the 5T is fine in a way, and I like
the magnification I get with it for these small critters. The problem is that a lot of subjects are right in the in
between focal distance. I was hoping that a lower power diopter would give me a greater working distance with better
overlap with practical subject distances.
I also suppose lower mag. would be better for flutterbys. At least for the larger ones, though, the lens alone is good.
The battered swallowtail I recently posted was shot from quite a few feet.
I was away when you posted yet another detailed fly image using the mcon-PO2
with the GM-5 and the tiny 35-100. That seemed to work very well but I only
viewed the image on my phone.
It came out pretty well, although I have since got better images of the same
flies with the PLeica.
I wonder what power diopter that is?--I suspect in the 2 range but don't really
know.
Remember, the lenses with internal focus get shorter in FL as they focus closer. I took rough measurements of focal
distance for the sun on concrete for it and the IS/L A Macro FL, which is speced at 2.6, and made slight correction to
match the 2.6. That gave me ~3.6 diopters for the Mcon-P02.
While traveling I would put some extension on that same lens which works well
but is a tad slower and fussier.
Tubes are technically great. In the field, with a relatively large, heavy lens, no place clean/convenient to put
anything down, wind with dust in it often enough, tubes are awkward, slow and put the primary lens at risk. With the
magnetic filter holders, popping the C-U lens on and off is a matter of a second or two. Although I've only had contact
problems a couple of times with a single tube, there are environments where that's likely to be a problem. Of course,
the 5T steamed up in my shirt pocket on a hot day. ;-) Cargo pants with lots of smaller pockets work better, and I now
have a belt filter pouch.
Can't say I chased too many flies in the alps.
Probably chased 'em away, without noticing. :-)
No fly zone, puzzled with all the permutations , Mike
The problem is armchair speculation, based on too little hard data, and that data on different lenses than one will be
using.
That's why I gritted my teeth and tried several out in person. Based on JS and what I could find on the web, the Canon
500D should have been great. Fortunately, I also had the Nikon 5T I bought several years ago. The results of a careful
test @ infinity focus were a surprise, the 500D was quite a bit inferior to the 5T, soft enough that I wouldn't use it,
with this particular lens and FL. With a different lens/FL, the results might be different. Fortunately, I was able to
return the Canon.
Lenseate Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|