Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> Isn't the reason for macro lenses, besides close focus, a flat field
> for copy, reproduction work? Normal lenses do not usually make good
> copy lenses because their fields are curved which is not a problem in
> ordinary photography. If that was an ordinary sized map then the
> 21/3.5 must have been at the minimum focus distance. This is a super
> wide angle lens, not a macro lens or a telephoto.
> --
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
>
Yes, for sure, a macro lens is specially design to have flat field for
copy works, they usually have very low field curvature from close
distance to infinity (at least the Zuiko Macro I owned). But actually
all lenses are design to provide low field curvature but it is in
infinity, when focusing close the field curvature may increase. As the
pictures looks very bad even in small screen, I'm not sure if it was
normal. If it is that bad I think the problem can be seen on
viewfinder too, I will back home to see if my 21/3.5 is the same or
not.
C.H.Ling
< 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 >
|