Walt:
Looking at Gary's test results for the 100/2, there is only one significant
difference in the test (centre at F4 is better with the OM2000). Otherwise, all
are within one full letter grade across the tests. That being said:
interestingly, the slight dropoff at small apertures with the OM2000 is less
marked with the OM1. Looking at the 90/2 results, there is a similar slight
dropoff on the OM1, and at the edges (relative to the centre) with the OM2000.
On those data alone, it would be a toss up which lens would be better, and
likely come down to production variability or personal preference.
Walt Wayman wrote:
> Brian,
>
> The 100/2 Zuiko is one of my favorites, so regarding the observation that it
> may be less sharp, as Samuel L. Jackson so eloquently put it in one of my
> favorite scenes (Chapt. 1, Scene 4) in Pulp Fiction: "Oh, well, allow me to
> retort!"
>
> Gary's first test, using an OM-1, of the 100/2 is contrary to my experience.
> His second test, using the same lens on a different body, a 2000, is entirely
> consistent with my observations, i.e., that performance suffers slightly at
> the smaller apertures. I generally try to avoid using mine at either f/16 or
> f/22 for that reason. If I am in a situation where I need greater depth of
> field than f/11 provides, and if it is worth the effort, I would dig out and
> use either the 90/2, 135/4.5, or even the 90/2.8 Tamron, all of which seem to
> perform better at the smaller apertures. The difference isn't great and the
> 100/2 certainly isn't a "dog" beyond f/11, but for critical work in that
> range, a different lens might be a better choice.
>
> Walt
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > Yesterday I scanned two Kodachromes I shot a couple of years ago, using a
> > OM1 on a heavy tripod, and self-timer with mirror lock-up.
> >
> > The subject was a yellow flag iris flower.
> >
> > Two lenses were used; Panagor 50mm f/2.8 which can go to 1:1; and the
> > Zuiko 100/2 which will go as close as 70cm.
> >
> > The images were almost the same size, but the Zuiko shot was slightly
> > smaller.
> >
> > My clear impression is that the Panagor shot is sharper.
> > Following the rationale of Gary Reese expressed on his lens-test site, I
> > think
> > that this results from the glass of the Panagor being MUCH closer to the
> > camera body than the glass of the Zuiko. So that the vibration of the
> > aperture
> > stop-down to f/16 (Panagor) and f/22 (Zuiko) had a greater effect on the
> > significantly longer lens. Shutter speed in both cases was about 1 second.
> >
> [snip]
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|