Hi Moose
Well I had some time on my hands when I was 25, a white big wall very near
my house, a new T-32 and a almost new 28/2.8 - unfortunately the 24/2.8 was
too expensive for me at the time.
I must make some corrections to my former post, now that I've found my notes
and the slides.
Test was done in two shots on Ektachrome 100 (EN 135-36) on Nov. 1985.
First one says "Zuiko 50mm f 1.4 @ f2.8, Olympus T-32 flash @ GN 32,
distance 11.45 meters".
Second says "Zuiko 28mm f 2.8 @ maximum aperture, Olympus T-32 flash @ GN
16, distance 5.71 meters".
Wide open, the ektachrome 100 came underexposed and with noticeable falloff
compared to the 50 @ 2.8 at the corresponding distances from the wall.
Besides careful distance measuring and outdoor night shooting, now I wonder
if four AA Ni-Cd were enough to fully charge the condenser despite the
charge lamp being lit. Now that I've got a PBG2 I know what does a fully
charged condenser mean. Anyway, this doesn't explain why the 50 @ 2.8 slides
were correctly exposed.
The slides returned from Tokyo, and I am looking at them now. I think I
didn't ask clearly enough so I received a vaguely related answer to my
question.
In half-thinking mode,
Fernando
> From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Coverage angle of T-32, was: Vivitar 550FD M/P/O discussion
>
> Somebody got a blank white
> wall, T32, 24mm lens and some time on their hands?
> ----------
> From: Fernando Gonzalez Gentile <fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [OM] Re: Coverage angle of T-32, was:
>
> I wonder if when doing my light fall off test (this was 1982, and I sent the
> original slides to Tokyo for an answer !!) I summed the t-32 light fall off
> plus 28/2.8 light fall off at full aperture.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|