this one in particular, I like a lot:
http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/90F2A/IMG_5140.html
On Jul 2, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I like the four monochrome green images. I don't think I've ever shot
> one of just foliage that I liked.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> C.H.Ling wrote:
>> Although I complained about the bokeh of 90/2 in some situations
>> but it is
>> still a great lens. The color/tonal rendering is probably the best
>> among all
>> Zuikos I have used, that's why it have greater 3D look. I don't
>> remember the
>> images Giles posted but I can assure the 90/2 has this special
>> quality.
>>
>> 80/4 and 90/2 are two different animals, 80/4 is designed for 1:2
>> to 2:1,
>> the images I just posted are all 1:1 shots, I don't find any
>> overlap on
>> them. I seldom use the 80/4 as it was mainly for insects but I was
>> too lazy
>> in these few years, it need lots of patience for finding insects.
>>
>> I hope below can balance out the 90/2 fans feel :-)
>>
>> Shot on June 24. Also, the aim was accompany my elder son for a photo
>> session so only did a few shots.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/90F2A/90F2A.html
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Joel Wilcox"
>>
>> This will raise the usual statements of denigration with respect to
>> the 90/2, but I believe it was Giles Stewart, once the list mum (?),
>> who posted comparison images of the 80 and 90 which to my eyes showed
>> a greater 3D realism to the rendering by the 90/2. As a result I
>> have
>> never yearned for the 80 and instead keep the 135 permanently on the
>> tubes.
>>
>> The comparison image was raindrops on a windshield IIRC, and not
>> really in the macro realm, whereas Ling's images appear to be in the
>> 1:10 and closer range, where other qualities may be emerging that
>> favor the 80. I should add that nothing about the 80 seemed bad,
>> just
>> that the 90 version was a wow to my eyes.
>>
>> I don't know if Ling remembers Giles' comparison images, but I think
>> his experience with the lenses has always seemed to favor the 80 over
>> the 90, so I suspect like any good Zuik you'll have to have them both
>> and see for yourself.
>>
>> As for me lately, I've been experimenting with both the 85/2 and
>> 135/2.8 with 7mm tube for close focusing. Haven't sent the film off
>> yet, but I recall John Lind got very nice results especially with the
>> 85/2 plus bit of extension.
>>
>> So many lovely ways to skin the cat.
>>
>> Joel W.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Dawid Loubser<dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Beautiful images, and this of course makes me lust for that 80/4.0
>>> even more now,
>>> to keep my lonely 65-116 tube company...
>>>
>>>
>>> "C.H.Ling" <c*****.hk> wrote
>>>
>>>> For me, I prefer to shoot at larger aperture most of the time, I
>>>> like the
>>>> feel more than everything in focus.
>>>>
>>>> Some shots from two days ago with 80/4, all life size F4.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/OMC/80F4/80F4.html
>>>>
>>>> C.H.Ling
>>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|