Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Don't confuse MF camera lenses with the longer enlarger focal length
> lenses - not the same thing at all.
> A bellows mount macro lens is very little different from an enlarger
> lens - flat field, few elements, etc.
Agreed. Although I wonder if the optimal repro ratios aren't
significantly different, with a 105 mm perhaps optimized for something
over 1:4 up to 1:20, so say 1:10.
Playing with the 50/3.5, it seems to be optimized for maybe 1:4 or
smaller, and starts to get weaker by 1:1. I don't know just how much
difference all this makes, but it may be significant. I don't know that
lenses designed for use at just one repro ratio used to outperform more
general purpose copy/repro lenses.
> Good ones are good.
Indeed!
> That nice
> Zoerk company makes interesting adapters designed particularly for
> using enlarger lenses for macro - they EXPECT you to use something
> like a Rodenstock 105mm - and my older style Rodenstock even has a
>
> 49mm filter mount. :-)
In my reply to Chuck, I took his suggestion of "a long focal length
enlarger lens to add to the small stable of 50 and 90mm macros."
seriously, and didn't consider anything as short as 105 mm.
In my case, I have 50, 90, 105 and 135 mm macro lenses, so I see no
point in dabbling in some other sort of lens in that range. Hmmm,
actually, the Tammy 90/2.5 with matching 2x multiplier si an excellent
180/5 macro - on film, at least.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|