The 4x6 prints were made on a Fuji Frontier. Do they scan and sharpen 35mm
negs or just do a straight print? I've never seen
"edges" like this. Come to think of it, the sky is super saturated yet I used
NPS160 (moderate saturation Fuji portrait film).
Maybe my miracle lens was digitally enhanced.
Lama
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I just don't think it is possible to really evaluate a lens based on 4x6
> prints.
>
> I did an experiment some time ago and posted the results, but that ISP
> is history, so here they are again
> <http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/>. I simply took the same image and
> compared a 600dpi scan of the 4x6 print to a 2700dpi scan of the
> negative. That way, with the fact that the 4x6 crops the neg, the 2
> images came very close to the same pixel density in the scans. The first
> image is a side by side comparisons of portions of the scans at full
> pixel size, about the equivalent of a 1000mm shot. The second image is a
> side by side comparison of the 2 full scans, reduced to reasonable size
> and with a box showing the location of the other images.
>
> Vastly better everything, sharpness, detail, color saturation, tonal
> graduation and range, etc. on the film scan over the print scan. Looking
> at the print, you'd say the film has no grain, hah! The print crops a
> fair bit off the sides and a lot off the bottom, but not the top!
>
> Now I think the Tamron 60-300 is a very fine lens, but I wouldn't think
> so based on the print.
>
> I ain't arguing anything about the quality of the 28mm lenses you
> comment on, I only have one of them, a 28/2. My Tamron is 28/2.5 and
> I've never compared the 2. Certainly the Kiron looks excellent except at
> f2 on Gary's tests. If I didn't have the Zuiko, I'd consider the Kiron
> first.
>
> I think the limited quality and roll to roll variability of 4x6 prints
> makes them poor tools for judging lens quality.
>
> Moose
>
> Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
>
> >The first prints from my Kiron 28/2.0 are as sharp as my Sigma 24/2.8.
> >
> >This means the Kiron 28/2 is noticably sharper in 4"x6" prints (in my
> >opinion) than any of these I've sold off:
> >
> >Tamron 28/2.8
> >Zuiko 28/3.5
> >Zuiko 28/2.0
> >
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|