alexo

The rule of thumb (no pun intended) is to photograph the sides of the hands, avoiding the palms and back of the hands as much as possible. You make the hands seem graceful by eliminating sharp bends and making hands form smooth, natural, flowing curves. Keep most of the fingers together, but relaxed. If an index finger is to be separated from the rest, keep the others together in a relaxed manner.

 

Keep in mind that photographing hands is one of the most difficult photographic endeavors. I've photographed for over 20 years and I've photographed professionally for a good number of years and I've never been able to get hand photography down pat. It's really tough.

I've never come across the Olympus to FD adapter. Theoretically, it's possible to make one provided you know what the film registration of both systems is. If the Olympus' film registration is longer than Canon FD, then all is required is a mechanical adapter. However, if the Olympus' film registration is shorter than Can FD (which is what I suspect), then you would need a mechanical adapter with an optical correction element. The optical correction element would increase the native focal length of the native lens in the same way that the FD to EOS adapter does. I suspect that this is the reason why such adapter hasn't been commercially produced (at least not to my knowledge).

Hi Mike,

 

Congratulations on your purchase. You'll have a lot of fun with your setup. I agree with the previous posters with regard to lens (notice the spelling) suggestions, so I won't repeat what they said.

 

If you're considering purchasing a zoom with macro capabilities or a genuine macro lens such as the ones previously mentioned, there is no comparison. The genuine macro lenses will blow a macro focusing zoom out of the water. In fact, the macro focusing zooms don't really achieve true macro capabilities. The best you can get out of them is 1:3 reproduction ratio. Whereas the Canon macro lenses will achieve 1:2 without extension tubes and some third party lenses will even get you 1:1 without extension tubes.

 

BTW, you may want to check out www.macrophotography.org It's a great resource for all things pertaining to macro photography.

 

Good luck!

 

Alexander

I don't think you guys are getting each other's points.

 

If I'm not mistaken, Douglas argues that for the best quality and a reasonable price, 3 primes would adequately cover the wide angle range. I don't think there can be an argument that primes are of better quality than zooms.

 

What I think that Scott is saying is that for his purposes, a zoom is good enough quality wise and he finds the convenience to be more important that he's willing to compromise in quality.

 

Both are legitimate points.

Everyone has pretty much answered your question. I just wanted to include one more resource you may want to check out:

 

www.macrophotography.org

 

It's a forum specializing in all things macro. Good luck!

You may want to check out the Sunpak 622 with a zoom head. It's just as powerful as the Metz 60 CT4, but it's lighter (It's still a potato masher type).

 

The Norman or a Lumedyne are very powerful, but you're right about the efficiency. There's too much of a spread and you don't get the kinds of distances you should see with that kind of power.

 

Alexander

Hi,

 

<p>

 

Has anyone had any experience with the Tokina AT-X 80-200mm f2.8? How does it compare with the Canon 70-210mm F4 (aside from being a stop faster)? Is it worth my while to sell the genuine Canon and buy the Tokina?

 

<p>

 

How does Tokina lens compare to Vivitar Series 1 f3.5 ca. 1986?

 

<p>

 

Thanks

 

<p>

 

Alexander

Hi,

 

<p>

 

Does anyone want to sell their Canon 35mm or 20mm Macrophoto lenses? Please contact me via e-mail.

 

<p>

 

Thanks

 

<p>

 

Alexander

Hi guys,

 

<p>

 

Why do you want to use an OEM dedicated flash anyway? I think all of

these things are a major rip! What's wrong with your 285? If you

want TTL functions and other niceties, why not get one of the more

modern Sunpacks for 2/3 to half the price of an original Canon flash?

Besides, with a proper module, you'll have no compatibility issues at

all. Just a thought.

 

<p>

 

Alexander

Hi,

 

<p>

 

I have seen a number of Canon 35mm and 20mm macrophoto lenses on e-bay and most of the sellers state that the lenses require a separate adapter to mount on the bellows. My understanding is that these lenses should come with the adapter. However, if one is missing, which adapter should I get to mount one of these lenses to the autobellows? I have heard that these lenses have a 39mm Leica screw mount, a royal something or other screw mount and everything in between. Does anyone know for a fact what type of a thread these lenses have and whether a third party adapter is available for them?

 

<p>

 

One a slightly different subject:

 

<p>

 

I heard that using enlarger lenses will produce good results with bellows since enlarger lenses are flat field lenses. Has anyone tried this and what kinds of results did you get?

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your help

 

<p>

 

Alexander