My 90/2.5 is now in the hands of another list member, but I am certain that
I did fit the Macro Flash ring to it using the filter-as-spacer trick that
you described. In any case, as you focus the lens closer than infinity, the
front telescopes out rather like an OM built-in lens hood. The diameter is
then no wider than a 49mm filter.
--
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Walt Wayman
Sent: 09 December 2004 17:13
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: which marco flash?
Yeah, looks like it to me, too. I've never had a 2.5, but looking at the
picture, its front end doesn't look any less fat-assed than the 2.8.
http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/data/a2-lens/72b.html
Makes me wonder if anybody has actually, for real, hands-on, in the real
world, attached an Olympus T8, T10 or T28 shoe directly onto one or if it's
just theory and supposition based on filter size.
Don't make me have to buy one to find out. I've got too many macro lenses
already, which may actually be proof that small things interest small minds.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I thought the older Tamron 90/2.5 would also have the fat-ass problem.
> http://www.tamron.co.jp/data/a2-lens/52b.htm
>
> -jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Walt Wayman" <hiwayman@xxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:52 AM
> Subject: [OM] Re: which marco flash?
>
>
> >
> > The 2.8 has 55mm filter threads, and, admittedly, attaching the
> > macro
> flashes does require the use of a couple of empty 55mm filter rings to
> extend the threads so the flash can clear that unnecessarily fat-ass
> front end, but this workaround cost $2 and took 5 minutes to make.
> And besides, the two rings act as a mini lens hood when using the
> macro flashes, a bonus that may not be of much help, but it sure don't
seem to hurt nothin'.
> >
> > Walt
> > -------------- Original message ----------------------
> > From: jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > the older F2.5 tamron is faster, better built than the 2.8 and is
> > > only 49mm so no problem attaching a macro flash
> > >
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|