At 12:40 AM 1/20/1999 EST, Gary you wrote in part:
>I used a massive unextended tripod on the 300mm w/ 2X and a weighted
tripod on
>the 100mm. Joel Wilcox might be onto something with his recommendation
that a
>telephoto lens be supported with a tripod arm. I think that lenses with
focal
>lengths from 150mm and up that rely only on the tripod socket of an OM body
>are not all that stable, even when the mirror is locked up (I used an OM-1n)
>and a long cable release used. How else can one explain that a 100-200mm f/5
>Zuiko can be sharper at 400mm (with a 2X converter) than at 200mm (without a
>converter), considering that only at 400mm did I prop up the lens hood with
>another tripod?
>
>I suspect the 85-250mm f/5 Zuiko would perform great on a tripod because it
>comes with a tripod collar that balances the weight. The 50-250mm f/5 lacks
>one and might suffer for it.
>
>Telephoto unsteadiness on a tripod might just be the price we pay for
>lightweight, petite construction of the OM bodies.
>
>BTW, I looked under an 8X loupe at the 200mm f/4 SC vs. MC results.
Virtually
>indistinguishable. Looks like I'll need to test that lens for a 4th time,
>this time with a lens support arm, which is going on my personal "want list."
>
>Gary Reese
>Las Vegas, NV
>
Hi Gary,
Just for the record, the telephoto lens support I use is the Bogen
(Manfrotto) 3420. The 200/4 is just "long" enough for the lens shade to
rest on the support, which telescopes outward for long configurations with
a 2X or longer lenses. Obviously, I think it is important to minimize use
of the center post of the tripod. There is a velcro strap that holds the
lens tight against the support, making verticals surprisingly stable as well.
Cheers,
Joel
< 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 >
|