Scnozz:
An interesting and useful post, as usual. I will try some experiments
this weekend, so I can see the differences for myself.
Thanks!
Bill Stanke
AG Schnozz wrote:
>
> >I'll ask you Stupid question #678 while the helicopters have
> you
> >distracted: how would a 50/1.4 with a 2X convertor compare to a
> >100/2.8? I'm assuming less resolution and contrast, which
> >*could* be an advantage for portrait work. Hmmm...
>
> Several factors come into play here:
> #1, the Zuiko 2X won't work with the 50/1.4
> #2, the 50/1.4 isn't sharp enough to multiply
> #3, the Bokeh goes to pot on you.
>
> You can always put a brand-x multiplier on a 50mm lens, but it
> doesn't make it a 100mm lens. It's a 50mm image magnified. This
> point is a bit subtle, but it is a critical difference to the
> resulting image. A true 100mm lens and a 50mm/2x lens
> combination produces different pictures.
>
> Why? The difference isn't always apparent for normal
> pictures--say landscapes where you have gobs of DOF. But start
> screwing the focus ring out a bit for close up or macro shots.
> The difference becomes night and day. This is one reason why
> zoom lenses rarely have as pleasing Bokeh as a well designed
> prime. Some zooms essentially have a variable multiplier behind
> a prime design.
>
> Take a 50mm lens, a 2X multiplier and 25mm of extension tubes.
> For your first experiment, place the multiplier between the lens
> and the tubes--you have the equivelent of a 100mm lens extended
> 25mm giving you a 1:4 magnification. The Bokeh will be similar
> to that of a 100mm lens on 25mm of extension. For your second
> experiment, place the extension tubes between the lens and the
> multiplier--you have the equivelent of a 1:1 magnification. But
> most importantly, you have taken a 50mm lens, used extension to
> get to half-lifesize and then magnified the image. If you used
> less extension to maintain a 1:4 magnification you would still
> see a huge difference in the pictures.
>
> The Vivitar 2X/Macro converter is an interesting beast. It
> extends the lens and then multiplies. This gives it greater
> magnification at the expense of working distance and Bokeh.
>
> Personally, I've always preferred working distance and Bokeh
> over magnification. I like my 50/3.5 macro lens, and it does a
> fantastic job, but the pictures taken with my 100/2.8 on
> extension tubes are far more asthetically pleasing (and sell!).
>
> So, in a nutshell, 2X multipliers have their place, but I'd
> rather use them on telephoto lenses WHEN NECESSARY and forget
> trying to use them to avoid carrying a 100mm or 200mm lens.
>
> We praise the manner in which our lenses create a 3D-ish image
> on film. That's a function of the lens design. Why spoil it.
>
> AG-Schnozz
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
> http://health.yahoo.com
>
> < 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 >
|