Well, you got my curiosity, so I did a comparison of my 50mm 1.8 vs
my Edmund wide field 6x loupe. The magnification of the 50mm is
slightly less, and you have to struggle to just barely see the whole
field of the width of the slide. The field of view is greatest when
looking backwards (camera end at your eye). The sharpness at the
edges with the 50mm is quite poor, and even in the center the
sharpness is noticeably less than the Edmund loupe. The 50mm is
slightly dimmer as well. With no base to rest on the slide, keeping
the lens at the right distance and flat orientation for best focus is
difficult.
As for the 90mm macro, I do not have this lens, but based on trying a
Vivitar 70 - 150 with macro the performance will be virtually useless
and actually less magnification than the 50mm.
--- Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu <lamadoo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Okay, I'll ask the rookie question.
> What am I missing when I use a 50
> mm 1.8 Zuiko, backwards in place of
> a real loupe? It's not optimized
> for flat field, right? So I can
> judge the sharpness of one spot at
> a time?
>
> Can I leverage a 90 macro for use
> as a loupe?
>
> Lama
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > Other loupe makers of note
> > Schneider
> > Rodenstock Apo
> > Maxwell Precision Optics
> > Contax Carl Zeiss Triotar
> > NPC
> >
> > I've got an older Schneider 4x
> and a Maxwell 6x. The Maxwell is
> spectacular, with a very wide field
> for the whold 35mm frame.
>
>
> < 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 >
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.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 >
|