On Sab, 30 mag 1998 4:31, Tmoynihan@xxxxxxx <mailto:Tmoynihan@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Those subscribing to the Medium Format Digest may have noticed a posting
>by D.
>Gonzalez in the May 28, 1998 issue, which read in part, "I have an Olympus
>250/2 that I've adapted to the Mamiya 645 and I've heard good things about
>a
>Nikon 600/4 ED' that was adapted to the Pentax 6x7." [Heresy only for the
>sake of clarity--for spellings conforming to the orthodoxy of this list,
>please substitute an asterisk for each vowel in all non-Oly camera
>products!]
>
>This implies pretty good coverage by the Oly lens. Any inveterate
tinkerers
>willing to try to convert their 250/2 to a *shift lens*? (No more
>converging
>verticals on those tall basketball players, etc.) ;-)
>
>All the Best,
>
>Tom Moynihan
>
Hi,
It is quite usual for *long* teles to be good for MF too. For instance the
Zuiko 400 6.3 (and 100-200 5) was designed for the Pen-F but fitted OM
mount too. And some long Nikkors fitted Bronica S (S2, S2A) too.
and every 35mm lens could fit MF if duplicated.
BUT
the usefulness of shifting a long lens of few mm is not great. And you'd a
lot of "vignetting" to take into consideration. You could stop down, but
then what the utility of a f/2 lens?
I understand many people adapt a 30 or 40 mm MF lens to a shift mount for a
35mm srl, and I think this is as much useful as the focal lenght is
*short*. Going beyond 80mm does not make much sense to me, IMHO.
Marco
< 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 >
|