Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Dude, who cares about .56ms?(now f/2 lenses)

Subject: Re: [OM] Dude, who cares about .56ms?(now f/2 lenses)
From: "Sue Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 15:12:38 -0500
Well, guys, as I think about my fast glass, I know the 28  is the sharpest 
lens I own. The 21 is also good, and the 82 is right up there.

The 35, well, although we all know that the f/2 lenses were generally the 
faster one of their kind, and therefore the lenses on which the camera 
companies hung their reputation, but in the case of the 35/2, it crashed. 
Mine produces lifeless, flat looking, pathetic images lacking in saturation.

Bill Pearce
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Dude, who cares about .56ms?


> On 4/9/2010 7:33 AM, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
>>> 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).
>>
>
> Again, I am not arguing from personal experience, but from years of
> reading posts here and squirreling many about OM lenses away for
> reference. There have been those on both sides of the fence for all
> three lenses. Personally, I've had the 24/f2.8, 28/2 and 35/2.8 for some
> time, but not the alternate versions for any sort of comparison until
> one very recently.
>
>>> 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).
>>>
>
> I've tried the 50/3.5 as a field lens, but don't particularly like the
> results. For close-up/macro, the working distance, a plus on the copy
> stand, is often too short for comfort, particularly for little critters.
> The bokeh in close-up use with relatively distant background is awful.
> As I also have the 135/4.5 macro, Kiron 105/2.5 that focuses directly to
> 1:1 and Tammy 90/2.5 macro with 2x converter to 180/5 that also focuses
> directly to 1:1, after a brief fling, the 50/3.5s retreated to the
> indoors again.
>
>>> 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've never done any portraiture to speak of. If I ever take it up, I
> have an 85/2 to hand. In the mostly outdoor, mostly landscape use to
> which I've put it, the 100/2.8 has fine bokeh (A goofy word, perhaps,
> but it saves typing.) Bokeh is very much a function of subject and
> background distances, both relative and absolute.
>
>> 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 sounds like a great lens, but it doesn't focus very close,
> which is a significant limitation to me. Add size/weight, cost and the
> primacy of digital shooting in my life now, and I can't see the point.
> That's why I tried a 90/2, but that' a subject for a different reply.
>
>>
>>> The 18/3.5 is wonderful
>>>
>> I don't think there is a fast alternative to that lens, in the Zuiko 
>> lineup.
>>
>
> Nope, but my reply overall was to Ag's comments about thoughts of great
> OMZ lenses going naturally to f2 lenses. I only mentioned the 18/3.5 as
> one of a handful of what I consider the best of the OMZs, but that
> aren't f2.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> The close focus mechanism in the 21/2 may give better flatness of field
> close-up. Somebody a few years ago posted some samples showing a great
> deal of field curvature in the 21/3.5 close-up. Doesn't matter to me. If
> for some strange reason I were to use it close in, it would be of a
> flower or some such, where OOF around the edges could be an advantage.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Perhaps so. There's this guy thing about wanting biggest, fastest, etc.,
> so the 50/2 may have eclipsed the 50/3.5 in many minds. I just don't see
> the point of a faster lens to be used stopped down for macro if it isn't
> better at sharpness, field flatness and vignetting.
>
> Even it's optimum aperture may not be an advantage. Optimum for the f3/5
> is f8-11, in my experience of copy use. If that of the f2.0 is f4-5.6,
> that would actually be a disadvantage with less than flat subjects,
> where I want maximum DOF at optimum aperture. I and a professor friend
> have done a lot of copying of art and archaeology books images for his
> lectures. They won't fit and/or can't be opened flat for the scanner
> without damage. Even on the copy stand, it's impossible to get all of
> them really flat. The 50/3.5 and Tammy 90/2.5 for the smaller images,
> ahve the DOf for the job.
>
> ObstrepteraMoose
>
> Personally, I've never seen a direct comparison in that use. Sure, it
> may work well at infinity, too, but that's where the 50/1.4 excels.
>
> 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/
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2800 - Release Date: 04/09/10 
06:32:00

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz