I have different experience, both my 109x MC and 56x G.Zuiko have very
similar performance at wide open and F2.8, I had posted some samples last
year (~3.5MB each):
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3655_5014SC_F14.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3657_5014MC_F14.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3656_5014SC_F28.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3658_5014MC_F28.JPG
All shot with 5D II, no sharpen.
BTW, I only seen 1/3 stop off at F1.4 at center of frame.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Dawid wrote:
>
>> Ken, I feel this way about mine too (also a very late model 50/1.4).
>> I have a couple of images at f/1.4 which, when looking at the print,
>> it is simply unbelievable that it was taken at f/1.4. Not just sharpness,
>> but evenness of illumination, etc. also.
>>
>
> Moose's comments got me to thinking and I did pull out a couple of slides
> taken with my old Silvernosed 50/1.4. I still believe that the old one is
> sharper in the center but the corners were another story. Gary Reese and
> I
> had discussed this at length several years ago and he concurred with my
> opinion--but we also felt that just like the 100/2.8, there were multiple
> generations and fine-tunings along the way. The old 50/1.4 was probably
> ultimately a little sharper, but only at specific apertures (F5.6-F11). I
> DID get rid of the lens, after all and swore off 50mm lenses for years and
> ignored all of you pontificating about the superiority of this generation
> of
> the lens.
>
> The only reason I got this lens was because of event work where I'm
> running
> up to limits with F2.8 lenses and needed the extra oomph for some of the
> shots. The focal length is still wrong for me, but the extra stop or two
> (with outstanding image-quality results to go along with it) is worth some
> inconvenience. I was just pleasantly surprised at how good the lens is at
> essentially all apertures--a trait not very common.
>
> Oh, one thing which I also noted about the old version of the lens is the
> 3D'ness of the images which I'm not seeing to the same extent with the new
> one--yet. The old one gives images what appears to be a high-pass filter
> effect.
>
> I looked at a couple of scans last night (computer was attached to my
> battery backup system), and determined that the lens was fully capable of
> resolving to the limits of the film and scanner. Not shabby at all and
> really only a couple of my lenses will do that with any form of
> regularity.
> However, I did spot some lens flare issues which I didn't expect to see
> from
> a mega-multi-coated wonderpiece.
>
> So, in a couple of weeks I'll be passing probably up to 20 rolls of
> Fujifilm
> Press 800 through an OM body or two at this big annual shindig. Lot's of
> grip and grins, live event stage production, etc. The E-1 will be pressed
> into big action as always, but will probably be nearly 100% flash work,
> while all the ambient light shots will be film. Stage lighting and digital
> just don't mix well--the film shots are in an entirely different league.
>
> 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/
|
