I think this is mainly because of "against the light" (the sun was right
behind the tower in these shots!) and f2, the shot at f4 from the other side
(021f2-3_f4.JPG) almost doesn't show fringing. I think even the digital
lenses will show some problems here. The 21f2 isn't telecentric at all I
suppose, so this doesn't help either.
I think for street photography it could be a nice 40f4 equivalent though...
Iwert.
on 06-11-2004 18:21, Chris Barker at ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Iwert
>
> Thanks for your opinion on this. I was disappointed to see fringing
> between the sky and the castellations/;buttresses of the church tower.
> Is this, do you think, because of the non-digital lenses?
>
> Chris
>
> On 6 Nov 2004, at 13:31, iwert wrote:
>
>> Because the zuiko 21 f2 is useable, but only at aperture from f4,
>> under that
>> it is soft. The Zuiko 50f2 is very useable, and has a wonderfull
>> bokeh. The
>> 100f2 is useable as well, certainly from f2.8 on. The 180 f2.8 really
>> needs
>> a tripod, which I did not have with me.
>>
>> Fourth impression: The quality of the top notch OM optics on film
>> beats the
>> E-1 with OM or ZD. It is NOT top notch on an E-1, but useable. I guess
>> when
>> an E-3 comes, it will be very clear Olympus did not exagerate digital
>> (at
>> least 4/3) needs specific lenses.
>>
> <|_:-)_|>
> C M I Barker
> Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
> +44 (0)7092 251126
> http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
> http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|