> But, if ultimate resolution is not the requirement (it often isn't),
the
> older lenses have their own charming characteristics.
What are these?
Certainly many variables in a lens rendition besides bokeh and
resolution. Macro and microcontrast are two others that come to mind.
Many Zeiss lenses are noted for their biting microcontrast which is
likely a major element in their "3D" drawing style. I believe the
"Heliar design" has high resolution but low
microcontrast which is better for portraits and such. Color rendition
can be affected by the coatings (as well as flare of course) and the
linear geometric distortions may differ. All sorts of chromatic
aberrations may differ. I'm probably just scratching the surface. .
Sometimes one just likes the drawing style.
I had a couple near identically composed images--one with a Canyon zoom
at 24 mm and one with the Z. 24/2.8. Just liked the latter. I did not
want to correct any "aberrations" with it in with that image.
Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? Perhaps not, but it is
much less work starting out with an image closer to one's liking.
Always could use another lens, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|