I notice that the depth of field tables seem to be the same in both user manuals. So I guess they got it right for the 'flex, but the RO won't do that (at least, mine won't).
BF
>
> From: Craig Zeni <clzeni@mindspring.com>
> Date: 2005/05/22 Sun AM 11:54:01 EDT
> To: "Koni-Omega Mailing List" <koni-omega@snoopy.cmagic.com>
> Subject: [KOML] Re: complete rapid m system
>
> >Barry F:
> >
> >> OK, I spoke with Greg (Weber) on the phone last night. He says that the
> >> manufacturer of the 135mm lens was hoping they could get to a
> >>four-foot focus
> >> when they designed and made the lens, but they couldn't do it.
> >>The charts in
> >> the owner's manuals are wrong. He says it depends on the
> >>particular lens, and
> >> the closest focus may be anywhere from six feet to eight feet. I told him
> >> mine seemed to be six foot eleven inches, and he said that was
> >>better than the
> >> one in his outfit, which focuses to about eight feet. He also said that the
> >> 180mm will focus to about 12 feet at the closest. For once in my
> >>life, I seem
> >> to be correct. He also said that the 135mm lens for the RO is exactly the
> >> same construction as the lens for the 'flex, and that he did not believe any
> >> 135mm lens on a 'flex ever focused to four feet minimum - it won't rack that
> >> far. So perhaps I'm not quite as crazy as I appear to be - only semi-crazy.
> >> Best,
> >> Barry
> >
> >
> >
> >I am skeptical that individual examples of the rangefinder 135 will vary in
> >close focusing ability by as much as two feet... this is very
> >counter-intuitive and I'd love to see hard evidence of this...
> >
> >He is wrong regarding the flex and the 135... the scale is marked to 4 feet,
> >and the lens will focus to fourish feet. Mine does.
>
> Add a second confirmation of 4 feet/135/O'flex...mine does as well.
> --
> Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
> http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
>
> Procrastina rem nunc.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 04/26/08 EDT