Hello Olafo,
I promised to have a look in Prangerls (german) edition,
sorry for the delay,
I had some private problems which go first.
> [Rudy:]
> >hmm, wondering, cause Pangerl wrote in the same book (german edition)
> >that if using the 2.0/85 lens (yes not the 4/80 !) in conjunction with the
> >bellow you should/must use the close focus distance - IIRC - so the close
> >up aberrration control group can kick in.
In the german edition (1st edition 1980, 1-12 Thousand):
on page 30 is a nice table for normal lenses and bellow usage:
(Title: "Einstellbereiche: Wechselobjektive und OM-Balgengeraet)
For the 2/85 there is a footnote, he says/explains:
"The 2/85 lens has to be used at 0.85m. The close focus distance will
kick in the floating element effect. All othe lenses have to be used at
infenity"
(remember this table was only for 'normal' lenses !)
> This then, sounds strange again...?!?
had a look some pages before and after, found no further explanation
> I haven't checked this section again in Pangerl, but it sounds familiar...
> Hmmm, anyone any idea why the 85/2 should be used at closest focusing, and
> the 50/3.5 not?!?
err, hmm, I found a picture and the title fori/against? the 3.5/50 at
close distance on page108.
This is in chapter "all about slide duplication"
The picture is in subpartwhere different duplication films are presented.
The title says" "OM-2N with Zuiko Auto-Macro 3.5/50 in 1:1 . Focus of lens
at 23cm close distance. This will kick in floating element effect"
The picture shows the OM2N with bellow, 3.5/50 (at 23cm) slide duplicator and
T32
I had a short look for your 4/80 sentence with the exclamation mark, but
didn't found it - not even the context ...
Olafo, would you please give me the chapter you found this one.
(so I can check this again)
(Are we talking about the same book ? ;-)
> [clintonr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:]
>
> >I'm confident that the admonition to set the lens at infinity in this
> >case is related specifically to it's use with the Olympus slide copying
> >apparatus.
see my above statement ... somehow against this one ... or do I misunderstand ?
> >>Secondly, I was wondering which non-macro lenses can successfully be used
> >>on the bellows, and what their advantages might be....
>
> >Earlier in this chapter (Chapter 7: Macrophotography), Pangerl offers a
??? chapter 7 ?
in my book there are only 5 chapters.
1. 'Hardware': OM-Macro System
2: theme and arrangement
3: all about slide duplication
4: all about reproduction
5: service tables facts
> Yes, I had read that section, and actually, reading it was what triggered
> the question in me how good the results of these lenses are when compared to
> the results of the macro lenses. Unfortunately I still haven't seen an
> answer to that question, but I assume both the 100/2 and the 135/2.8 would
> do well (I expect especially the 100/2 will do well). So, it would still be
> interesting to see some comparison (or hear some experiences about such a
> comparison) between the usage of such lenses on the bellows vs. the usage of
> e.g. the 135/4.5 on the bellows... Anyone?
have no comparison of the 2.8/135 and 4.5/135 but just made tonight some
pictures with the 2.8/135 and bellow
if the pictures are nice I may scan some in the next week.
Still looking for the macro lenses (80 and 135) at resonable prices,
(and T10/T28) I was outbidden several
times in the last 6 month on german ebay.)
Rudy
< 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 >
|