----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Herndon" <nherndon@xxxxxxxxx>
> >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).
Don't have the slower version anymore, for the three F2 lenses I have, 24/2
has the highest resolution (at least at the center).
>
>>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).
>
Don't know about close up but for distance object my 50/2 is better than my
50/3.5 MC from center to edges, it has excellent edge to edge performance
even at F2. Here are some samples taken with 5D II.
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3659_50F2_F2.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3660_50F2_F4.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3661_5035_F35.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_3662_5035_F56.JPG
>>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 100/2.8 MC I once owned had beautiful color (a bit cool) and sharp for
distance objects but 85/2 seems better for close up and I like the extra
stop. 100/2 is great but heavy. 90/2 beat them all for edge to edge
performance although 100/2 is a little sharper at the center.
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/100F2_56a.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/100F2_2a.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90F2_F2.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90F2_F56.JPG
> 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.
>
21/2 has very high resolution, even my sample is not perfect it still
provide very fine details at the center (probably on par with the 24/2).
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/
|
