> I don't quite see why OM claim their macro is a 1:2 lens, either, if
> it'll do more than that. Maybe the closest focus numbers on
> imaging-resource are just wrong..
>
> Maybe they're inches not cm.
Well, I poked around some more, and
http://www.olympus-pro.com/eu/en/product/lenses/mm00000000/specifications.ht
ml
claims that the 14-54 focuses down to 22cm, max. magnification of .26x
(whatever that means)
Here's where it gets strange. The 50mm macro focuses down to 24cm, but that
time it's a max.magnification of .52x. I think C.H.Ling must be correct, the
closest focus for the 14-54 has got to be at some non-obvious zoom length.
If anyone's wondering what the lens cases/hoods look like:
http://www.olympus-pro.com/eu/en/product/accessories/lens.html
(actually, the case for the 14-54 is just a drawstring bag. Sheesh, that's
pretty cheesy for a $600 lens..)
There's also some screenshots of the viewer software on olympus-pro.com
(europe branch), and bigger MTF charts, etc, more stuff on why 5mp+digital
optimised lens is better than 6mp non-optimised (which basically just says
"it is, trust us"). They're definitely filling out the info as they go --
lots of little flash animations of light moving around and suchlike.
Oh, here's a fun one for the will-they-wont-they-adaptor argument:
http://www.olympus-pro.com/index.eu.en.html?content=/eu/en/technology/digita
lneeds/angleofview.html
shows an OM-mount Zuiko being used to take an image onto normal film, then
onto a CCD, as an example of why this sort of approach is bad. I can't help
feeling this isn't particularly conclusive, though.
-- dan
< 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 >
|