I have finished looking over my slides taken with the Zuiko 200mm/4 plus the
Kenko 2X Teleconverter.
This evening I walked over to a small van on the back of which is attached a
bumper sticker to measure the sticker width. It turned out to be 39.5cm. The
sticker measured on the wall screen was 4.25cm. Since the width of the image
projected was 32.5" (sorry about mixing different systems of measurements) and
the width of the slide is 35mm (a little less than the film size), I get a scale
factor of projection, which is 23.7. Therefore the bumper sticker must be about
1.79mm in width on the film. Thus I photographed the bumper sticker with a
scale factor of 220 to 1. This is much larger scale factor than the one used by
Gary Reese.
Since the area I covered with the 200mm+2X TC combo is the next block of my
street 30m away at the nearest distance, this use might be more typical of the
use of this combo. Those of you who use 400mm often can comment here.
Now as for my results, I have to differ from Gary's evaluation of his results.
My setup is the combo on my OM-4T (with a 2-4 screen) and I used the self-timer
throughout this set of measurements. Lighting was sunlight in late afternoon
starting at 4:30p.m. (EDT) according to my notes on May 14, 1999. I used Fuji
Velvia for this run. The camera was secured on the Bogen 3205 with the 3029
head. No additional support was used since I do not yet own one.
Basically my image consists of a few cars and vans, the rear license plates of
which are visible and the street, grassy areas, brick steps to the front porch
of a house beyond the next block. With this set, I have some people in the
corner which were blurred because of their motions when I was taking pictures
with stopped down apertures of f22 and f32. I found a stationary bird on a hand
rail in one of my frames.
My f4 results were much better than Gary R.'s because I find that the central
area is quite sharp, just as good as or even better than my f8 results. (I
skipped f5.6). The f8 results extends the area of sharpness to the bottom edge
and to a certain extent the top part of the image.
I think the f11 results showed the brick porch steps at the top of the image to
become sharper. The f16 results showed "Maryland" on top of the license plate
somewhat more recognizable, but I am not sure on this. The f22 and f33 results
were not indistinguishable from the mid-aperture frames except for blurred oak
leaves. I was happy to see the blurring because my counting and the frame
numbers were not quite in synch, but the blurring leaves helped identify the
shot with longer exposures and I was able to double-check my identification.
Also I had the lab numbering the slides when mounting, which helped as well.
In all I came to appreciate the tedious tasks Gary Reese has been doing, but my
results indicate much more optimistic outlook on the combo.
If any of you are interested in looking at some machine prints which can be made
from my slides, let me know by contacting me off-list.
I have done tests with the 200mm/5 plus 2X TC and the two lenses with the B300,
but I have not thoroughly gone through them.
Tomoko Yamamoto
mailto:tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.charm.net/~tomokoy/
< 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 >
|