Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Olympus Petition

Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus Petition
From: "Ulf Westerberg" <ulf.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 1998 11:04:56 +0200
First Denton Taylor wrote:
>
>> I vote for a 200 macro--here's why.
>
>> 2. Because so many folk use the Oly for macro, there would be quite a
>> market for a 200 macro.
>
>> Waddaya think?
>

Then Richard Schätzl wrote:
>Only if it is an non IF lens. Why?
>With an IF lens you have to reduce the focal lenght of the lens to focus
>(the lens gets not longer, so they have to reduce the focal lenght to
>focus). With an IF 200mm Macro,the resulting object distance from the
>front lens would be the same as an 135mm Macro on the Auto Macro Tube
>65-116mm (depending on the magnification). So all the new "smart"
>180-200mm Macro IF lenses are not better than the good ol 135mm Zuiko
>(for macro purpose).
>But I will concede, that an new lens with reduced minimal focusing
>distance would be great.
>

Right on, Richard. Too many people forget this IF-effect when raving about
new design in lenses. You cannot substitute extension.

My vote: A special 2X converter with tripod collar for the 90/2 macro lens,
designed just for this lens. This way you'd get a 180/4 macro lens all the
way to 1:1 for the fraction of a cost of a true 180/200 mm macro lens.
Surely this could be done  with the same excellent end-results as a true
180-200 macro lens. And it would save my back just hauling around one lens.

Ulf Westerberg


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz