Two other things.
1. The AF version may be physically different because of the AF.
2. Tamron says that the internal filter is an essential part of the the
optical path, so you should always have a filter in for best sharpness.
This also implies the effective thickness (actual * refractive index?)
should match. Does any one have a Tamron 300/2.8 and a micrometer?
tOM
On Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 14:11
Mike <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Tom, thanks for those links. I called b&h and they told me that those
> items are for the canon AF 300/2.8. However the helpful person i talked to
> suggested I try them because in his experience they might indeed be
> compatible with the manual focus adaptall version. Unfortunately the items
> themselves are in a warehouse far removed from customer service and so he
> couldn't verify a fit himself. My other choice would be a) the slim B+W MC
> 43mm which is listed and spendy but hard to find actually in stock.
> Adorama may have one and the thickness is still an unknown. Or b) buy
> another filter and file down the ring as Walt suggested. If that filter
> mount from the canon does indeed rotate as it looks from the photo I may
> take a chance on it, the convenience would be worth it.
>
> mike
>
>
>
---- Abacurial Information Management Consultants ----
Tom A. Trottier, President http://abacurial.com
758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
N45.412 W75.714 +1 613 860-6633 fax:+1 775 307-4133
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
< 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 >
|