Hmm... for the size of prints I usually make (rarely larger than
9.5x12in) the 35/2.0 looks
more than good enough. I've never understood the point of pixel-
peeping, especially for lenses to
be used with film, but thank you C.H. Ling, your test images are as
ever very useful.
I sure love my 24/2.0, and your image shows the impressive performance
even wide open for an almost
40-year old design.
cheers.
On 02 Jul 2009, at 11:56 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> In my experience 35/2 is the least sharp Zuiko wide among the F2
> group. For
> the F2 Zuiko wide, the order of resolution at infinity would be:
> 21/2, 24/2,
> 28/2 and 35/2. 21/2 and 24/2 are very close in performance.
>
> 21/2, 24/2 and 28/2 has close focus correction, they should perform
> better
> at close distance. I think the price reflect the quality very well,
> 35/2 is
> the cheapest F2 wide, of course it is also due to this focal length is
> easier to make.
>
> BTW, I just made some test shot with 35/2, 24/2 and 50/1.4 SC, you
> can see
> the performance of both 24/2 and 50/1.4 are better but the 35/2 shot
> is
> still very usable. (the focus point is at "Central Valley")
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5479_35F2.JPG
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5480_24F2.JPG
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5481_5014F2.JPG
>
> 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/
|
