I was wrong in my guess also. I thought you were proposing 180mm f2
coupled to a 65-116 extension tube attached to the 1.4X TC. That is, with
the extension tube between the TC and lens. I understand this arrangement
increases magnification but not focal length. What does it do to the F?
Do you get a 180mm f2 macro, f2.8 or neither due to fall off because of
the extension?
By the way, this is one way you CAN use the 90mm f2 with the 1.4X without
ripping/grinding bits off it, though it won't focus to infinity.
The afore-mentioned setup with the 180mm f2 does work. It is a bit
cumbersome though and is a good test of your ball head, especially on a
Benbo with the central column canted horizontally or down and out at an
angle (this is a Benbo thing you conventional tripoders wouldn't
understand ;-) The set-up looks rather awesome!
It sure gives you some working distance and judging by a couple of test
images I took the image quality is pretty good, though I need to do some
more testing.
Who's got a 250mm f2 and a huge ball head to try out ;-)
Thanks to Ross Waite for this idea.
Giles
GMA wrote:
> How do I make the incorrect sound here? It would sound like an out of
> tune raspy foghorn. Meaning: close, but no cigar. :>)
> (The 90/2 will not mate with the 1.4x. If it could, it would be a 126
> F/2.8)
> George
> PS: The lens combo I'm referring to equals a 150 F/2.8 or so, maybe a
> third or half stop faster even!, but it doesn't measure out to be an
> F/2. The real answer is a 90/2 macro coupled to a well coupled to
> another Olympus lens. (Do the math! Think outside the box! :>) I dunno
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|