Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] OM-5D macro comparisons

Subject: Re: [OM] OM-5D macro comparisons
From: Joel Wilcox <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:36:42 -0600
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012, at 09:56 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 1/29/2012 9:49 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> > That is interesting, Joel.  The 90 does give the impression of slight 
> > softness, in that shot.
> 
> I thought so too. But as one who often bashes the 90/2 for softness at
> close focal distances, I though I'd wait and see 
> if anyone else noticed.
> 
> None of them look really sharp, but that's to be expected with no post
> down sampling sharpening.

I checked really carefully and felt that the image sized for the web
held its edges pretty well, possibly because I used SI Pro to downsample
(though I did nothing to enhance sharpness in the process).  I think SI
does an amazing job of holding up image integrity when down-sizing, but
I haven't tested that waters in a while.  I really did consider doing
some further sharpening, but I thought it would be fairly easy (and
likely) to negate at least some of the differences by doing that.

I am pleased with the lowly Z 50/3.5.  I believe it acquits itself more
than adequately against the 55/2.8 macro.  I was surprised that its
excellent contrast, if anything, may beat the Nikk*r.  This is a MC
sample. As Chuck noted, the light was different between the two shots,
slightly, perhaps favoring the 50/3.5 in the perception of contrast. I
do find the Nikk*r very natural-looking, and its extra speed is an
advantage for manual focusing.  For handling, the aperture ring
placement of the Zuiko makes it much easier to use on the 5D.  And it is
small.  Despite its lack of speed I have no problem focusing it. 
Marvelous lens.

What to think about the 90?  I think, for one thing, the test is not the
last word on the 90.  Where the point of sharpest focus should be, I
find the 90 to be a trifle softer than the other two lenses.  Look, for
example, at the veins at the top of the petal that is the most vertical,
just to the right of the bole of the flower:

 http://myweb.uiowa.edu/jfwilcox/

There is a bit of a difference in the contrast in all three photos, and
the light is softer in the 90 shot than the 50/3.5. Perhaps that's not
helping with the impression of sharpness.  I do think that the 50/3.5 is
sharper than the 90/2, but I can see that the 50/3.5 *shot* is the
contrastiest of the three by the luck of subtly changing light.

Finally, notice that in the 90 shot you can see a little further up the
main channel of the orchid.  The tripod is obviously in a different spot
for all three of these shots.  On the 90 shot, the flower is "longer"
and DOF at f11 doesn't cover quite as much.

I would conclude that my 50/3.5 is the sharper lens.  I have always
expected that that might be the case, but the 90/2 gets used much more
for my purposes for reasons that have nothing directly to do with
sharpness as a desideratum. For example, I would not even bother testing
the 50/3.5 against the 90/2 for bokeh. The luxury of working distance
with the 90/2 is certainly a factor. 

> > And they are lovely shots.
> 
> Yes Indeed.

Well, thank you, but it's also hard to screw up with such a beautiful
subject.  Credit my wife for getting the things to bloom.  This is the
time of year when my photography habit finally gets me a bit of cred
with the Mrs.

Thanks all for indulging me, looking, and commenting.

Joel W.



-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - IMAP accessible web-mail

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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