Perhaps what you're seeing and responding to is superior contrast
performance. Gary's tests show high contrast results for the lenses you
mentioned although the 100/2.8 only gets that at f/8. Other lenses are
also noted for high contrast at specific apertures or ranges. Try some
other Zuikos at those apertures.
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose, I think what I was saying is this:
>
> 1. I personally feel that most of the "Leica Mystique" is a load of bunk.
>
> 2. I'm afraid that I'm "seeing" these supposedly non-existent traits
> in my own shots taken with a Leica designed and labeled lens.
>
> 3. Since we know that the "Leica Mystique" is pretty much bunk, then
> it's obvious I must be getting better as a photographer. :)
>
> Maybe it's a little bit of both. Maybe it's all the lens and I'm just
> along for the ride. Whatever it is, I'm pleased.
>
> Just for entertainment, I revisited a lens test I did a few weeks back
> and compared images taken with every lens in my kit at overlapping
> focal-lengths. It's rather interesting how the color and contrast of
> the Leica lens is totally different than all of the Zuikos, but almost
> without exception, the Leica shots had a well defined edge between the
> subject (a stone statue) and the background. Not only that, but even
> within the statue, the visual perception is the face having dimension.
> Only three of the Zuikos did that: 50/1.4, 100/2.8 and 35-80, but
> only the 35-80 had the tonal subtlety which the Leica had.
>
> 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/
|