> I looked, but could detect little difference with the smaller images
> you refer to. With the larger versions I could see a difference. I
> could detect no polygons, but the little out of focus circles were
> bigger and more hard edged with the Tele-Elmarit. As Walt remarked,
> it may make a more pronounced difference with a large print or
> projection.
Sorry, I wasn't being very careful with what I wrote. What I see in some
cases are um, "inflated" hexagons, or circles with six little points on
them. But the exact details don't matter here, what matters is whether one
likes the look produced by any given lens. As an aside, what's being
compared here are two top-notch lenses, which may not differ as much a more
uneven comparison would.
I think Clement is also correct: there are undoubtedly other factors. I just
don't know enough about them to say anything. I'd guess that where the
diaphragm is in the light path affects it as well. It's worth noting that
shooting wide open if possible will obviously eliminate any diaphragm
effects. Keeping highlights out of the background also obviously helps.
And since this is sort of related...
> And as far as sharp and contrasty, who wants that in a portrait
> lens anyway? My choice for portraits, especially of members of
> the tender gender, is the 100/2 Zuiko, but with a Tiffen Soft Net
> filter. They'll like the results, and then they'll like you.
You're absolutely right of course. I've been taking portraits of my 5-year
old daughter, and the 100/2.8 gives an almost heightened realism and
immediacy; the projected image seems even sharper than what I see with my
own eyes. For a someone my own age I should consider a diffuser or
soft-focus or such. I take it you recommend the Tiffen?
Regards,
Andrew
< 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 >
|