>
> On film, I prefer the rendering of the 1.4, despite the "higher
> performance"
> of the 1.8 miJ. But I also keep a silvernose 1.4 -- technically the worst,
> but with a really nice "flavour".
>
A couple weeks ago I was looking for a particular slide and I was leafing
through my file-cabinet pulling sheets. One particular sheet was nearly
entirely taken with an old silvernosed 50 F1.4 lens. The center-sharpness of
the lens was simply outstanding, but the corner performance was, uh,
lacking? However, there was that unexplainable "something" to the images
which just seemed to be so inviting. It was a good match to the hot-rodded
Fuji 50 I was running at the time.
But many zooms end at that: 35-70, 28-70...
>
True. I had that Tokina AT-X 35-70 F2.8 zoom which was an outstanding
performer. But I never did come to grips with that slight lack of length on
the long end. The Zuiko 35-80 F2.8 is slightly longer, but those extra 10mm
transforms the lens from long-normal to short-telephoto. Wtih 70mm on the
long end I was always wanting just a tiny bit more. With the 80mm on the
long end I'm almost always OK with it because if I want a tiny bit more,
I'll switch over to the 100mm. The gap between 80mm and 100mm is narrow. The
gap between 70mm and 100mm is almost insurmountable.
BTW, it was fun to see both Joel and me use the 35-80 F2.8 lenses at the
same time.
AG
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|