On 8/6/2019 1:07 PM, Jan Steinman wrote:
In my fairly extensive experience, including real-life shots and test charts,
the best focal reducers and tele-extenders are pretty much invisible, allowing
the qualities (or lack thereof) of the underlying optics to shine through.
On 8/3/2019 11:30 PM, Jan Steinman wrote:
. . .
I have the EC-20 (for 4/3rds) and the 2-XA (for OM), and they are both a bit
underwhelming.
So, which is it? Or which tele-extenders are better than these Olys
The converse is also true: a crappy focal reducer or tele-extender will make a
mess of the finest lens.
Of course. I've used several, in MF film days. None struck me as particularly good for general use. The Tamron 1.4 for
the Tammy 90/2.5 Macro worked very well, as did the Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing Teleconverter with a good 50 mm lens, like
a late 50/1.4. Never had the Oly 1.4x
I used to be a skeptic. "How can 'adding glass' make things any better?"
My point wasn't about "make things any better" It was about making things
different.
But then I got out there and shot with numerous combos of focal reducers,
tele-extenders, and lenses.
I'm sure happy you are having a ball with that gear. Not my cuppa.
I think the inverse power law applies: whichever one is "worse" is going to
dominate.
What? There isn't an adapter that can make my early '60 Canon 58/1.2 into the
equivalent of a new Zeiss Whateverus?
OoF 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/
|