Discussion Forum for various Lenses of different major labels in a shared environment at Photography In Malaysia

1. From : Ken D (kdurling@earthlink.net)
Url : http://
Date : 03:54 PM Saturday 15 March, 2003

Ok, before you guys nail me - it's late night here and I'm not thinking - I realize 2"x3" is not 2:1 with a 1.5"x2" negative. It's half a full frame at 1:2. But it's pretty ballpark, and I think the comments still apply.

2. From : Ken D (kdurling@earthlink.net)
Url : http://
Date : 03:43 PM Saturday 15 March, 2003

Hi Jill - I'm not an Olympus user, but I do shoot 35mm and there are some principles common to all of them here. You could, as you ask, go with a macro lens, most of which will get you to 1:2 magnification without any help. Some will do 1:1, and the ones that don't can be made to do so through the use of special teleconverters, which essentially magnify the center part of the image.

It's noteworthy that you named 2x3" as your lower limit, because a 35mm negative is 24mm x 36mm, or almost exactly 1.5" x 2". So you can see that you have expressed a need for exactly 1:2 magnification. There are common 3rd party macro lenses avaialbe in Oly mount at 50mm, 90-105mm, and 180-200mm all of which will give you precisely that magnification, and extremely sharp, flat-field optical design. I'm sure Olympus makes their own, too. The main difference between the various focal lengths is working distance. For example the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 macro lens gives you a minumum focusing distance of about 12", at which distance it produces 1:2 magnification. 50 and 180mm lenses will give you half and twice the working distance, respectively. So this could be a good way to go, as these are marvelous lenses. There are similar ones from Vivitar Series 1, Tokina AT-X, Tamron SP and Kiron. They're all diamond-sharp when handled right.

HOWEVER, all that siad, you have a very low-cost alternative right in your possession. Lens extension shortens minimum focus and increases magnification. This can be done with bellows, extension tubes and extension tubes combined with converters. With your 50mm lens and some extension, you could easily get to 1:2x. The formula for extension and magnification is: E/F = M, where E is the amount of extension, F is the focal length of the lens, and M is magnification. So, with a 50mm lens you need 25mm of extension, since 50/25 = 2, or 1:2 magnification. You can buy a 25mm extension tube for about $20.

The trade-off here is that your normal 50mm lens is probably not a flat-field design, so you might lose a bit of edge-to-edge sharpness working very close like that. But it might not be enough to even notice, let alone be a problem. I have done macro work with a 50mm and extension tubes and the results have been great. But I have not done copy work like you're describing. The nice thing here is that your unaided 50mm is probably about perfect for photographing your larger pieces.

Some of the challenges of working close like that are: even lighting, and not casting a shadow when you're only 5-6" away from the subject; and depth of field, which is very shallow at these distances, like only a few millimeters. This forces you to shoot at minimum apertures most of the time to maximize DOF, which forces your shutter speeds way down below hand-holdable and obviously you're using a good tripod or copy stand! There is also some loss of light with any extension.

So hopefully from all that you have some idea of what the relative advantages are of using a dedicated macro lens and of extending a normal lens. One other thing you can do is buy "diopters" which are basically magnifying lenses that screw on like a filter on the front of your normal lens. There's no light loss, and they're convenient, but I think it would be pretty hard to get to 1:2 with one. Not sure about that, as I don't use them much. But I've seen very good results from them. I'll stop! You didn't ask for a lecture, so sorry bout that - got carried away! It's such a fun topic!

3. From : Jill (jkotlarchyk@netscape.net)
Url : http://
Date : 12:29 AM Saturday 15 March, 2003

Hi. I'm looking for some advice as I'm not a photographer. I'm a painter and printmaker and need a macro lens primarily for taking slides of my artwork. The small stuff can get as small as 2" x3". The big stuff, on the other hand, goes up to about 60" x40", at least at this point. I have an OM1 with a standard 50 mm lens. It's in absolutely perfect condition and I love the camera even though I haven't done much with it since college. (I have very small hands and really appreciate the size, quality and ease of use). What additions do I need to be able to photograph such teeny things with excellent resolution and color (these slides are going out to galleries and buyers). Do I need a ring light too? Is there one available for the OM1. I bought the camera in 1977 or 1978, so it isn't the very oldest Olympus (it has an "MD" on the front). Thanks for the advice! Jill

4. From : Rob (rob.white@ns.sympatico.ca)
Url : http://
Date : 10:21 AM Friday 14 March, 2003

Hi there... I just found an original Nikon EM in the attic at my parents house and after reading through all of the useful information on this site I've determined that there may be a problem with it. When I depress the shutter button 1/2 way to check the exposure, it seems that the meter inside is 'stuck' in the red zone at the top of the meter (above 1000) regardless of the light conditions. The beeping sound still works fine and can be used to adjust to the approximate speed. Now, since this is just a little project of mine, I'm not interested in tracking down a repair shop where I could get this fixed. If anyone here would be able to recomend any way that I may be able to get the meter 'unstuck'. Any suggestions will be much appreciated. Thanks in advance. -Rob (ps: please respond to my email at rob.white@ns.sympatico.ca)

5. From : Mark Carr (panama@worldheadquarters.com)
Url : http://www.worldheadquarters.com
Date : 02:26 AM Friday 14 March, 2003

I came across a used Nikkor 28mm-45mm manual zoom lense yesterday at local camera store. I have never seen this lense before and have reviewed the information about this particular on this web site, however, I have been unable to find any reviews regarding the performance of this lense. If anybody has used this lens and would like to comment on its performance it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Mark Carr

6. From : Greg Chappell (gregmchappell@nww.net)
Url : http://
Date : 12:27 PM Monday 10 March, 2003

Hi, Miguel, Certain ways in which the Nikon lenses "speak" to bodies have changed, but the physical lens mount itself has NOT changed since the Nikon F was introduced in 1959. ANY lens made for a Nikon should mount to any body. Some will not autofocus (obviously) and some will not allow full aperture metering on certain bodies, but if you have a lens with a Nikon F mount it will mount on ANY Nikon body. A lens that works on a Nikon F100 will mount on a N90, F3, F, Nikkormat, etc., etc. If the lens will not physically mount or is too big for your N90 I would question it's compatibility with an F100, but I would first take it to a dealer or repair shop and ask someone who knows various equipment and can tell you what you have.

7. From : miguel (midus2@aol.com)
Url : http://
Date : 09:45 AM Monday 10 March, 2003

just bought a mint condition tamron 200-400mm f5.6 lens from a gentleman on ebay. the auction indicated it was for nikon mount, i have an n90s. the lens has the same configuration where it goes attached to the camera as my other nikon lenses but seems to be much larger in diameter than what the camera will accept to be mounted. is this lens compatible with this camera? i emailed the gentleman and he mentioned he had this lens mounted on an f100 and with no problems. are the mounts different for these 2 cameras? from what i have read about nikon their lenses fit all their cameras which must mean the mounting flange is the same diameter, correct? any help would be appreciated. thanks in advance miguel

8. From : Ken D (kdurling@earthlink.net)
Url : http://
Date : 04:15 AM Monday 10 March, 2003

Dave - I'm someone who will use a 3rd party lens if it's good enough, and plenty of them are. Tokina, Kiron, and Tamron all have made top-notch lenses, some of them sold under the Vivitar name. The 90mm f/2.5 macros come to mind. There are at least a couple of Canon FD 70-210 lenses, the nFD one with a concstant f/4 aperture I think is the one most highly regarded. There is also a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 lens which is very well regarded. YOu should be able to find either one without much problem.

As to lenses above 300mm, I own two, which I'll report briefly on. One is a 3rd party Tokina AT-X (their "pro" line) SD 300mm f/2.8, and the other is the Canon nFD 400mm f/4.5. Both lenses are superb performers. Both have their "sweet spots" as does any lens, but cneter sharpness is good enough that I can use either of them with 1.4 and 2x extenders with excellent results. So I think it's wise to make a decision based on the individual reputaution of a lens, rather than whether it's OEM or not. What IS true is that while there are very good and quite bad 3rd party lenses out there, there are actually very few real dogs in the FD line-up. I can't think of one off-hand. But the price difference between my Tokina 300/2.8 and a FD 300/2.8 is much greater than the quality difference, if there even is one. It's worth doing some research - you can find wonderful optics for less than you might think.

9. From : Dave F. (kayndave@mhtc.net)
Url : http://
Date : 07:55 AM Sunday 09 March, 2003

I've decided to keep my F-1 and old Ftb bodies and lenses to work with. I'd like to get a good 70-210 zoom and a telephoto in the 300 to 500 mm range. Can anyone direct me in a good direction? Better to stick with Canon FD lenses than aftermarket lenses? Thanks for your help.

10. From : Ken D (kdurling@earthlink.net)
Url : http://
Date : 01:34 AM Saturday 08 March, 2003

Frank - Lens coatings are not visible through the viewfinder. If the "dots" are more or less in focus it sounds like you've got something in your mirror box or on your focusing screen. Anything directly on the lens glass will not be clearly visible because it's too close to be in focus. That's why you can often get perfectly good photos even with slight defects on the front element. The rear element is another story - but it still will not be visible through the finder. Inspect your mirror box, and if necessary take your camera in for cleaning.

PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216