At the beginning I don't want to give my comment on that, since personally I
also don't like the 28/2.8 due to its color rendering. But my experience is
totally different from yours. The 28/2.8 is sharp, a bit lack of color with
normal to high contrast, resolution is fine although not outstanding.
I rare use the 28mm/2.8 in recently years, so I don't have a good sample to
show you, but if you are interested below is a snap inside an airport in
Germany. Which was shot with Fuji Sensia RD 100 at F2.8 and around 1/30s.
It is a 2700dpi full resolution scan in JPEG with size of ~1.3MB. Although
it is not a 4000dpi scan but good enough to see there is no color bleeding.
http://www.glink.net.hk/~photogrp/28.jpg
Please keep in mind it is a wide open shot and what you see at 1:1 on
your 15" monitor is actually larger than 48 inches wide.
Talking about Zuiko 28mm, I once own two 28/2, two 28/2.8 and finally I'm
keeping the 28/3.5, which seems ballanced very well on color, resolution
and price, but a bit too slow.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olympus" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> <snip>
> I started this email out, but then ran to get my OM lens, so I can be
> accurate on the information:
>
> Zuiko 28mm/f2.8 MC (which I assume means Multi-Coated) #171022
>
> I bought it from Samy's. What don't I like about the pictures it takes??
> First off, the contrast is bad. Over saturation (bleeding) of colors into
> each other. Second, it's a bit soft. I take a picture with my 50mm, and
> that thing is razor sharp. My 28mm is soft at best, really soft
generally..
> But it's the annoying bleeding of colors that really bothers me...
>
> As far as my Tokina... Now that I flip through my pics... The Tokina is
> sharp! The only time it's not, is in the use of Macro shots, but I've
> noticed that they are sharp as well. Only when I stick on the 1:1 macro
> adapter, does the image get crappy.. So it's not the main lens, it's the
> adapter that sucks. OK, mental note, forget the adapter.
>
> I really love my OM. I do. So when you hear complaints, it's not because
> of the lack of love, it's the fact that I'm a bit nit-picky. I have to
> admit, on my roughly 35th roll on my OM equipment, and the shots are just
> stunning, some of them. So it's not the equipment. And I see sh*tty
shots
> with top of the line Nikon and Canon equipment all the time, so it's not
the
> equipment. My friend's dad is a famous photographer, he still uses his
old
> stuff, he likes it better, and his award winning photos say that the old
> stuff is still good stuff...
>
> What I always tease my friend about is, if a burgler breaks into my house
> (well, being a gun owner, I'd shoot his ass) but that aside, I can always
> beat him over the head with my Om-1n. The thing is a brick!! The local
> camera repair guy that Chris introduced me to, he says that he gets new
> camera's in all the time, but like the OM's, he generally gets them in for
> cleaning and battery conversion, and repainting the doors etc.. He said
> these things are tanks and should last a lifetime.
>
> You are right, I can tell REALLY crappy lenses, like no-name brand ones,
> (generally heavy on the flare) vs. high end stuff, (Contax) I saw a side
by
> side, same settings, different lenses... But for the most part, I can't
> tell one camera+lens combo from another. I can tell the difference
between
> a medium format vs. 35mm when 8x10 or larger, but that's not really
fair...
>
> So I do love my OM gear, but I am still not happy with my 28mm.
>
> Albert
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|
