On 17 Jan 2011, at 6:24 AM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> I believe the "Heliar design" has high resolution but low
> microcontrast which is better for portraits and such.
A bit off-topic, but I *love* the Heliar design. I use a
50mm f/3.5 Heliar from time to time, and it's at this time
the only lens I've used that I would consider technically
"better" than the Zuiko 250mm f/2.0. It's exquisite. Here are
three (non-exquisite :-) photographs with the lens, all
scanned darkroom prints (5x7in):
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/300/3/b/roderick_by_philosomatographer-d31ntqv.jpg
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/300/1/4/wishing_the_outside_inside_by_philosomatographer-d31ntzz.jpg
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/300/5/6/waiting_for_transport_by_philosomatographer-d31ntgt.jpg
As I said, first and only lens I've used which, in it's rendering,
actually improves
on the big white Zuiko - in a 12x16in print it's wholly remarkable. Of
course,
two lenses could not easily be further apart in size and weight (the
Heliar takes 27mm filters,
I believe the Zuiko takes something like 150mm filters :-)
So, the fact that the "look" of a 50mm f/3.5 lens that only focuses
down to 0.9m
can seriously excite a guy who has (or had) some very high-end other
50mm lenses
from several systems, means that the character and optical design of a
lens has a
large influence on the final products - not just the specifications,
or a single
axis of performance (e.g. resolution).
regards,
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
