On 8/25/2016 4:38 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
Then what's wrong with this Elgeet 38mm f/1.9 for $50?
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELGEET-LENS-38mm-f-19-ROCHESTER-NEW-YORK-/331933452486?hash=item4d48c688c6:g:b0cAAOSwH6lXQjtF>
or this 38mm f/1.8 for $25?
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/Elgeet-38mm-f1-8-Opto-Navitar-Telephoto-Lens-/252506961393?hash=item3aca9675f1:g:gc4AAOSwqfNXl6pi>
And regarding any of these C-mount lenses they're only designed for an image circle for 16mm film. Even if they cover
Super 16mm that's only about 7.4 x 12.5mm whereas 35mm is 24 x 36mm and even 4/3 is 17.3 x 13.5mm. That's only about
40% of even a 4/3 sensor.
Might you have missed the key word in the Elgeet 7/2.5 mention - "reversed"? Reversed, its small, 8 mm film size
coverage is fine for tiny things. That it has good performance in the other direction at short focal distances is likely
more accident than design intent.
To run off from there to longer FL C-mount movie film lenses unreversed seems more than a bit of a stretch to me.
Reversed, one or another might, or might not, be good. How is one to tell without testing?
I think the Oly macro lenses would be cheaper unless one gets off on that sort
of collecting and testing.
Coverage Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|