Dawid Loubser wrote:
>
> Anyway, almost all of these lenses (apart from the Mirror lens, which looks
> worse than the others)
> appear to be limited by film grain in the test - they should have used Pan F
> :-)
Still, it seems to me there is enough detail to see differences. That
said, see below.
> The 250/2.0 does seem to have remarkable resolution and freedom from colour
> fringing for a lens that sucks in anywhere from double to eight times the
> light compared to the others.
>
I am not impressed with the test. How can one conclude anything
meaningful about overall performance from a tiny, low contrast subject
in only the central portion of the frame? One could choose a lens, then
find that it has horrible dropoff in sharpness and lots of CA once out
of the center. No info at all about flare.
If all one is going to soot is far away wildlife that only occupies the
center of the frame under overcast skies, great test.
Also, for me, the speed isn't worth the $ and other costs. I know you
are wild for shallow DOF, and the 250@ will certainly do that. Since I
am generally looking for more DOF*, I would likely never have it wider
open than maybe f4, and hope to be at f8 of 11. So the 300/4.5 is enough
long Zuiko for me.
Moose
* Note Joel's comment on lack of DOF in the corner of one of my recently
posted images.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|