On 21 Sep 98, at 20:03, Joseph Albert wrote:
> Of course, this calls into question whether one needs to go with the
> more expensive floating-element wide-angles that have better correction
> of close focus aberrations. My own experiences with the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8
> is that the close focus aberrations in the corners are only a problem at
> the more open apertures. So you need the f/2 versions of the lens if you
> are wanting to shoot at wide apertures. I have closeups of flowers
> taken with a 24/2.8 Zuiko where the aberrations are so severe that the
> image falls apart in the corners. This is normal with retrofocus lenses
> that aren't floating element designs. However, these were also at f/4
> and a few at f/5.6. By f/5.6, the f/2.8 24mm and 28mm lenses are fine,
> but at closest focus I'd rather be at f/8 and below.
Can you describe what you mean by falling apart? Is there a total
loss in sharpness, or distortion, or both? Just curious, as the
24/2.8 is on my list, and I just picked up a Tamron 28 f2.8 in the
interim.
> someone else suggested that at 11x14 and even 16x20, 35mm was as good
> as 6x7. I have to disagree here. with very careful technique and the
> finest grained film you can get results with 35mm that rival medium format,
> but you won't get it with the same consistency as with a medium format
> camera. plus, with medium format you don't have to use the finest
> grained materials that often are the most contrasty (Velvia, Ektar 25,
> Tech Pan), but rather can get the medium format look with a wider
> choice of film palettes.
I'm not sure if you're referring to my post from last night here; I've
been known to be misunderstood when I start rambling... ;-) My
point was that I have had a few shots which can be printed *very*
sharp at 11x14 and beyond, which proves to me that 35mm *can*
produce these results. But I admitted that I am *far* from doing this
consistently, but it certainly is a goal of mine. Also, these results
were on PanF, which as you mention, is among a group of fairly
unforgiving films, making that consistency even harder to achieve.
Someone else mentioned the lack of smooth tonality in 35mm
enlargements, something which I have also noticed in some shots.
I have a few shots taken with my old Yashica 6x6 which have a
wonderful, warm buttery sort of tonality to them, even though they
aren't all that sharp. With practice, I have come pretty close to this
with FP4+, but I'm comparing to a very old, low end TLR. I'm sure a
high quality 6x6 would simply be stunning in this area.
I guess what I'm saying (I'm rambling again...) is I think it's all
about finding and pushing limits, both your own, and the
equipment. In my case, a 6x7 would be wasted, as I'd produce just
as many mediocre shots as on 35mm, and spend more time (and
money) doing so. But many on the list are clearly much more in
tune with there equipment, and their own abilities, and now see the
need to raise the limit to a higher format.
Shawn & Janis Wright
swright@xxxxxxxxx
http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
(Olympus List Archives)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|