TAKO. INTERNET SEIT 1996.
Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] Dude, who cares about .56ms?

Subject: Re: [OM] Dude, who cares about .56ms?
From: Nicholas Herndon <nherndon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:33:53 -0500
>We?

>I'm not sure I'm sold. Look at the recent threads on the 24, 28 & 35 mm
>OM lenses. Not everybody here is convinced that the F2s are better.

I dunno Moose, I'm pretty convinced.
Having had both the slower and faster versions of all three of those
lenses, I will say unequivocally that I prefer the faster versions.
But objectively only the 28/2 could be said to be the best of the 28mm
Zuikos (both lab tests and real world shooting confirm this.  Not that
the other 28mm Zuikos are bad, but the 28/2 is just that good).

>I've not compared them myself, but I'm convinced that a 50/2 wouldn't
outperform my 50/3.5s for copy work

The 50/3.5 is unparalleled for copy work.  I love it on digital for
product shots; it gives an extremely flat field and ZERO distortion.
But what about other macro work?  (I have no experience with the 50/2
so I can't say).

>The 85/2 is very nice, but I'm not convinced it would make much real
>difference for most purposes to use the 100/2.8.

For portraiture, the 85/2 kicks a llama's @ss.  The 100/2.8 has (in my
opinion) terrible out of focus area rendering (or bokeh, if you will).
 I have a feeling the 100/2.8 might be a hair sharper.  The 100/2 is
far superior to either, at least from what I've seen (I haven't used
it, only the 85/2 and 100/2.8).

>The 18/3.5 is wonderful

I don't think there is a fast alternative to that lens, in the Zuiko lineup.

>and I'm not convinced a 21/2 would give my much
my 21/3.5 doesn't have.

I only have the 21/3.5, but there are times when I wish I had the 1.5
stop faster version.  That said, I get the impression that both 24s
and both 21s behave similarly, in that the slower lenses may be
sharper, but the faster lenses are, well, faster, and have the close
focus correction that all of the faster Zuikos are rumored to have.

>If asked to name the best OM lenses, I'd have included the last 50/1.4.

Agreed.  And Ken, sorry, but I don't think you could refer to the last
50/1.4 as a sleeper by any definition of the word.  I think it's
pretty common knowledge that the later 50/1.4s are great lenses, and
as such are highly sought after by users (OM and digital alike).  If
you ask me, the 50/3.5 macro...now THERE is a sleeper.  That is one
lens that does not disappoint.
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>