Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] manual ext tubes

Subject: Re: [OM] manual ext tubes
From: dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:58:56 -0700
Ben Russell wrote:

Just a quicky, before I hit the sack:

I have 7mm and 14mm non auto extension tubes, that I haven't used yet. Am I
right in thinking that the only difference from auto is that the shutter
doesn't stay open as you stop the lens down - otherwise they work on TTL
metering just the same? Or am I missing something important here?

When you typed shutter, I assume you meant diaphram. If so, you are correct. TTL metering measures after the lens is stopped down in both cases, so results would be the same.



Also if anyone has tips or observations on general use I'd be grateful. I
have Tamron 90/2.5 mac and Zuiko 50/3.5 mac (both 1:2) and 24/2.8, 35/2.8,
100/2.8, 135/2.8 primes. Do I have any advantages using ext tubes over/with
macros?

For a while, I was doing a lot of copy work on a stand with limited extension (OK, an converted enlarger). I used the same 2 lenses you have. The 50mm for larger originals and the 90mm for smaller. The 50mm could cover almost everything, but had a very close working distance from the front of the lens, which would have required changing the lighting setup, something I was loathe to do when taking a lot of images. The 90mm gave a good working distance for smaller subjects, but I ocassionally needed to go closer than 1:2. I put the 7mm tube on the 90mm and just left it there for each session. It allowed the extra close focus I needed while still allowing focus at the top of the post. Of course, I have an auto tube, so shooting with it on is exactly like with it off.

Manual tubes are fine for static situations, but pretty inconvienient for outdoor/handheld. The Tamron 2x flat field teleconverter is great for sunny outdoor with fastish film. Gives the wokring distance to make bug, flower, etc. pics easier. Available on the Bay quite cheap if you are patient.

How would 50/1.8 with tubes compare with 50/3.5 macro?

Hummmm. Faster lens designed for maximim quality at or near infinity vs. lens designed for macro work. I'll bet you can guess! Especially true for copy work of flat surfaces, where the excellent field flatness of the f3.5 is even more important. Way more convienient, too, as the f3.5 focusing helical range is greater, so you don't have to change tubes as often when changing repro ratio.

Moose


< 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