On Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Richard Schätzl wrote:
|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?
|
|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.
|
|Talking of 135mm, why not an Zuiko 135mm/2.0 IF, would be cool, at least
|as long I can not afford the 180mm/2.0.
What makes you think you can afford the 135/2 IF? :-)
< 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 >
|