Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Macro gear

Subject: Re: [OM] Macro gear
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:52:59 -0400
No, I didn't miss the keyword "reversed". I'm well aware of reversing lenses for macro work and also quite familiar with John Shaw's book "Closeups in Nature". I've owned my own well-used copy for probably 20 years. And I didn't *intentionally* run off to longer focal length C-mount lenses. I specifically picked the 38mm versions of Elgeet lenses since I misunderstood the following in Dean's post.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gotta try focus stacking with that Elgeet sometime. Prices for the 38/2.8 have softened some in the last few years."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought he was referring to an Elgeet 38mm (which was reinforced by finding faster Elgeet 38mm lenses plentiful) when in fact he was referring back to the OM 38mm.

But you did answer my question on image circle size... it doesn't matter for the size of many of the subjects that Dean photographs. I should have understood that after having spent a day with him in the lab and the field a couple of years ago.

Chuck Norcutt


On 8/25/2016 11:37 PM, Moose wrote:
On 8/25/2016 4:38 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
Then what's wrong with this Elgeet 38mm f/1.9 for $50?
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/ELGEET-LENS-38mm-f-19-ROCHESTER-NEW-YORK-/331933452486?hash=item4d48c688c6:g:b0cAAOSwH6lXQjtF>

or this 38mm f/1.8 for $25?
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/Elgeet-38mm-f1-8-Opto-Navitar-Telephoto-Lens-/252506961393?hash=item3aca9675f1:g:gc4AAOSwqfNXl6pi>


And regarding any of these C-mount lenses they're only designed for an
image circle for 16mm film. Even if they cover Super 16mm that's only
about 7.4 x 12.5mm whereas 35mm is 24 x 36mm and even 4/3 is 17.3 x
13.5mm. That's only about 40% of even a 4/3 sensor.


Might you have missed the key word in the Elgeet 7/2.5 mention -
"reversed"? Reversed, its small, 8 mm film size coverage is fine for
tiny things. That it has good performance in the other direction at
short focal distances is likely more accident than design intent.

To run off from there to longer FL C-mount movie film lenses unreversed
seems more than a bit of a stretch to me. Reversed, one or another
might, or might not, be good. How is one to tell without testing?

I think the Oly macro lenses would be cheaper unless one gets off on
that sort of collecting and testing.

Coverage Moose

--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz