Of my OM-Zuikos, the 50/3.5 is terrific on the E-1. The 90/2 exhibits
the same qualities in digital that I love on film. Others -- from
90mm to the wides -- not so much. Oh you can get good photographs,
but it is quite a bit more work and never really superior to the DZ in
that range. However, the 85/2, 90/2, and 100/2.8 are often worth
using because the bokeh beats the DZs hands down.
I've had a lot of fun with the Tamron SP 80-200 on the E-1, but I'll
probably never use it again if I have the DZ 50-200 with me, and you
can bet I will. I've yet to explore the bokeh issues with the DZ
50-200, but the Zuiko 300/4.5 has wonderful bokeh with the adapter.
Joel W.
On 2/7/06, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think the technical details are more like Olympus makes less money if
> you continue to use old lenses. They had to be dragged kicking and
> screaming to release the OM to 4/3 adapter.
>
> To be fair, ZD lenses are newer and undoubtedly better. They also
> communicate with the body so that lens specific parameters can be
> handled. They're probably made to resolve 10-12 MP on the 4/3 sensor.
> But the OM lesnes compare very well when they only have to handle 5 MP
> on the E-1. Maybe 8 MP on the later cameras as well.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Komtanoo Pinpimai wrote:
> > Heelloo,
> >
> > I wonder why using 35mm lense with 4/3 dlsr isn't recommended. I just
> > wanna know the technical detail like 35mm lense angle doesn't work
> > well with 4/3 aperture ? or the image from 35mm lense is not correctly
> > aligned in 4/3 ccd ? ....It's must be a hard problem to fix so that
> > olympus abandoned the OM lense line. ?
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|