Actually, at least one of the mail listers here talked about the difficulty
of targeting a subject outdoors with the 20/2. I do agree that one may have
to experiment for himself.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daan Kalmeijer" <daan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Bellows macro lenses
> John Shaw doesn't use OM equipment (he does mention the Zuiko 90/2 macro).
> As a non-OM user he gets his 4X magnification with teleconverters,
bellows,
> reversed - and/or stacked lenses. His combination of gear is chaotic and
> inconvenient, not the outdoor environment. It could be that our 20/2 lens
> plus 65-116 tube and OM macro flash equipment is very different from what
he
> has ever used. The 38/2.8 is so easy in the field, even at 3.5X, that i'd
> very much like to try the 20 mm. It _must_ be possible to get good results
> outdoor with this lens. C*n*n has a (new?) EOS macro lens that goes up to
5X
> and it was built to be used outdoor.
>
> BTW, John Shaw makes _great_ macro pictures, even with N*k*n equipment :-)
>
> Daan
>
> Pictures of Insects at:
> http://www.kalmeijer.net
>
> >
> > Since noted outdoor photographer, John Shaw, points out that 4X is about
> the
> > best one can hope for in the chaotic environment of the great outdoors,
> the
> > 38/2.8 probably represents the limit for convenient outdoor macro
> > photography in an OM mount. (The 20/2 would seem to be better suited
for
> > indoor macro work.)
>
>
> < 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 >
|