> And permit me to praise your use of words to describe the
> optical behaviour
> in such an easy-to-grasp manner - I find it immensely
> difficulty to explain
> such things in words, without the benefit of
> pictures/diagrams.
Thank you.
> but what you seem to be saying is that
> the distinction between in-focus and out-of-focus portions of
> the image is plainer with non-digital lenses than with a
> tele-centric ZD lens?
In general terms, yes. Take a standard AZ (Analog Zuiko) 50mm
lens and the 14-54 DZ (Digital Zuiko), dial both in to F5.6 and
focus on a flower or other 3D object at 1M (one meter, or three
feet for us in the States). More of the flower will look
in-focus with the DZ lens than the old lens. The point of
critical focus is less important with the DZ than the AZ.
However, the background will have substantially different look.
Another factor, which takes a lot of time to test and get your
brain around is the bokeh characteristics of objects closer to
the lens than the plane of critical focus. Most lenses are not
symmetrical so the blur is different for close objects than for
far objects. This is one reason why the lowly 40/2 and 35/2 are
so "comfortable" to use as they are, in most cases, the most
symmetrical of all the 35mm lenses.
> I assume
> you are using both on a digital body. Have I got it right?
Absolutely. I'm very partial to the 100/2.8 for portraiture and
the 35/2.8. However, the 14-54 DZ is very special in its own
right and has become my "walkabout" lens.
> What is CoF? CoC in another guise?
Nope, the sound you make when you have the flu. :) Typos are
us.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|