You will get there quicker using the 100mm lense. (less overall
extension)
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> "Bill D. Casselberry" wrote:
>
> > > Besides using 200mm of extension with a 200mm lens already
> > > capable of 1:1 reproduction ratio seems a little excessive.
> >
> > I agree - it will become physically unmanagable at some
> > point. I might suggest that you use a 50mm macro w/ your
> > 200mm of tubes rather than the 200 - should give you
> > somewhere around 4:1 mag ratio which would be an actual
> > field of 1/4 by 3/8 inches.
>
> OK, let's look at it from this perspective. First, I don't
> have a 50mm macro that I can use for this project. I do have
> the A100/2.8 and the A*200/4.0 macro lenses.
>
> The item I want to photograph is about 11mm in diameter. I
> would like to fill as much of the frame with it as possible,
> i.e. about 2X magnification. I haven't been able to do that
> with just the lens alone or the lens with 68mm worth of tubes,
> that's why thoughts of greater extension are running through
> my mind.
>
> I can manage the additional tube length with no problem, so
> that's not a consideration. What concerns me is the quality
> of the image. If the image were life size on the film, and I
> made a 16x20 print, would the image on the print be of higher
> quality than if I used longer extension tubes, got something
> closer to 2X life size on the neg and then made a 16x20 print,
> with the final image on the print being the same size in both
> cases, almost 16" in diameter?
> --
> Shel Belinkoff
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions.
