Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] The 150/2.8 or so Zuiko macro

Subject: [OM] The 150/2.8 or so Zuiko macro
From: GMA <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 09:37:18 -0800
Giles;


Whoa! You had said your guess wan't cheap - and you weren't kidding!
Quite ingenious.  I'll try it with my 350! BTW, when I had a 300/4.5 I
hooked it up to the 65-116 and had some fun with insects.  Never tested
for resolution, but it seemed a wee bit soft.

So, the combo I've been talking about is:

        90/2 macro plus 1.7X (IS-3) supplemental lens.

Screw the 1.7x onto the front of the 90 (90*1.7 = allright, = 153 close
enuf for gov't work)

Provides lots of working distance. It meters out at about 2/3 stop
slower than just the 90. 


George



Giles wrote:
> 
> 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 >

< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz