I'm a bit relaxed as you say there were focus error, if one can see the
difference with E-1's LCD then the lens is very bad, as the embeded JPEG is
only 1280x960 pixel.
Some time ago I did a comparison test on 90/2 and 100/2 with 5D II for
distance object. 100/2 is slightly better at the center but 90/2 is very
even across the field and better than 100/2 at the edges. I don't think 90/2
will do poorer for close objects.
90/2 at F4 no sharpen
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_9566.JPG
100/2 at F4 no sharpen
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_9568.JPG
Actually, I'm rather disappointed on my 100/2, the poor edge performance
make the lens not good for landscapes.
BTW, I don't have problem to focus the 85/2, 90/2 and 100/2 with 5D II.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> So, here is question for the Olympus masses. If a lens is technically
> as sharp as another, but in practical handheld photography isn't as
> sharp, is it actually as sharp?
>
> Here is the scenario. The other night at the Iowa Zuikofest, we did
> some ad-hoc lens testing. Joel with the 5D ghetto cam and me with the
> E-1 lead sled. I was testing handheld. However, I was using
> best-possible handheld techniques where I was anchored up against a
> wall and tripodded my body. Techniques which usually yield me with
> some pretty respectable results. Yet, the shutter speeds were low,
> with the fastest being 1/100. Definitely way too slow for anything
> other than entertainment. Yet, something strange happened.
>
> I shot with Joel's 90/2 and 85/2 as well as my 100/2 and 100/2.8. In
> aperture-priority mode I shot at each aperture. Blurries kicked in
> with a vengence past 1/15. No surprises there. I'm not perfect.
>
> But what has gotten me puzzled is that at all apertures both 100mm
> lenses out performed the 85 and 90. And not by a small margin either.
> Technically, these lenses should all be relatively close to each
> other. So, here is what I'm thinking. As smooth as the E-1 is (and it
> is extremely smooth), I might be getting some shutter vibration that
> shows up at the shorter focal length lenses. Yet, something else I
> noticed and even verbalized it when doing the testing. Both 100mm
> lenses "snapped" into focus whereas the 90/2 and 85/2 weren't quite so
> definite. Just maybe my focus is a bit off, but at that I should have
> seen it show up elsewhere in the photo of the mustard bottle. Hmm.
> Upon closer examination, the 90/2 and 85/2 MIGHT have been focused a
> touch closer, but that just shows that I couldn't manually focus them
> correctly.
>
> I'm wondering how Joel's tests with the 5D turned out.
>
> My subject distance was about 2 meters.
>
> I also was testing bokeh. Without a doubt, the 90/2 and 100/2 in
> leagues of their own, but here is a quite perusal. These pictures had
> chairs and tables of the dining area spread out to the distance with
> some closer, some farther and some even farther away. I shot the
> length of a dining room.
>
> 90/2. Wide-open is gorgeous. M
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
