Short tele with minimal aperture around 32

[igord]

<p>Does anyone know a short tele lens (80-135) in zuiko mount with minimal aperture 32 or smaller?</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 (72B) with the appropriate mount would fit the bill. I mention this because I have the 100mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/2.8, and neither goes slower than f/22; the Tamron goes to f/32.

[User_502260]

<p>You could find a 135/2.8 Sigma Pantel. This lens stops down to f/64. I have two of them in Konica mount. One alternative would be to get an inexpensive 135, dismatle it, remove the aperture blades and insert a waterhouse stop. There was a very interesting book with the name Four Perspectives On Model Railroad Photography. One of the photographers modified the taking lens of a Yashica 6X6 TLR by installing a waterhouse stop. It tremendously increased depth of field even if diffraction would lower overall sharpness somewhat. I think some of the older 105/2.5 and 105/4 Nikkor lenses stop down to f/32. Another possibility is finding an enlarging lens in the 80-135 range with a minimum f/stop of 32 or smaller. I am looking at a late model 105/5.56 EL Nikkor from one of my Nikon drawers. It goes down to f/32. Are you looking to use the lens for close-up or macro work or for work at longer subject distances? </p>

[ilkka]

<p>Zuiko 80 macro goes to 32 and 135 macro to 45. Both bellows (or auto tube) mount lenses. I think they can focus to infinity as well but I am not sure if both can.</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>If you don't mind diffraction effects lowering resolution, you can make your own f/64 aperture without dismantling the lens. Just put a black cardboard with the aperture in a gelatin filter holder, or even black-painting an old filter.</p>

[igord]

<p>Thanks for your help! I have to shoot sort of close distance subjects with long lens using universal macro converter. Aperture f/22 is not small enough.</p>

[Greg M]

<p>Why not just focus stack your images to maximize depth of field vs. using an aperture that will degrade image quality due to diffraction?</p>

[igord]

<p>Greg, thanks for your good advise, fortunately resolution etc. is not important as the subjects have no details at all.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Good luck, Igor. I am thinking that going from F 22 to F 32, --which I have not seen lately in current 35mm lens design, or not noticed same for a while by the way--, will not give you <em>much more close focus depth</em> if I understand your project. I could be wrong though. And then, another thing is you get into a question of pouring a powerful enough light on the subject , another challenge.<br>

Maybe consider other ways, thinking you can reverse mount lenses, plus stacked diopters, tricks like what Greg mentioned, worth trying i think. Good luck...gs</p>

[igord]

<p>Thanks Gerry!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Gerry I think F32 is virtually dead with DSLRs as even on full frame the diffraction is bad. For example my Canon 70-200 F4 L IS will shoot at F32 but the result is not great. I assume Igor is shooting film as F32 on M4/3 is terrible. Certainly trying it on a Panasonic G1 with a Canon FD 200 F2.8 and 135 F2 produces horrible diffraction.</p>