On 4/27/2012 3:51 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
> So, at f/2.8 (a pretty nice aperture to shoot at for subtly shallow
> DOF), gary reese tested the Zuiko 50/1.2 to be superiour not only to
> the Zuiko 50mm f/2.0 Macro, but also superior to the Leica M-mount
> 50mm Summicron, and the Leica M-Mount 90mm f/2.0 Apo ASPH.
First, a few of caveats.
In later correspondence, Gary said that personal experience with a 50/2 in
regular use convinced him that that his test
was not representative of 50/2 performance at the widest apertures. As I
recall, he wasn't sure if it was sample
variation or some error in his testing. So it is quite likely that a test of a
couple of particular examples of the
50/1.2 and 50/2 would show the macro lens to be sharper at f2.
The 50/2 is a macro lens, optimized for closer focus, while the 50/1.2 is
optimized for the 1:40 repro ratio used in his
tests. Compare them at 1:4, or even 1:10, and a different picture will emerge.
As Chuck pointed out, it is meaningless to compare any of Gary's tests that are
not paired comparisons, at the 1/3 grade
level. On a full grade basis, and considering the above about the 50/2, all
three lenses test the same at f2.8.
The f2 lenses are only a stop down from wide open. The f1.2 is two stops down.
> I find that incredible - what do you guys think about that?
Incredible in what way? Gary wasn't testing 'glow', after all. :-)
Seriously, all the various 50-55 mm f1/2-1.4 lenses from Minolta, Nikon and
Pentax that he tested are essentially the
same at f2.8. That makes sense, as all had talented designers with the same
glasses and technologies to work with.
The differences will be in more subtle qualities of "drawing/rendering", rather
than simple sharpness or resolution.
I wouldn't think the differences would mean anything at all for your signature
style. I would think that the way in
which a lens segues from in focus to out of focus and the bokeh of OOF areas
would be more important than some tiny
difference in plane of focus sharpness.
I suspect that the Summicron-M might be inferior for an entirely different
reason - focus accuracy. I've never been a
rangefinder guy. But I've read that focus accuracy at moderate distances and
wide apertures is often a problem with
Leica rangefinder bodies/lenses that aren't meticulously maintained/adjusted.
Thinking of the body of work you've showed here, I see precise placement of the
plane of focus as very important. For
example, the shot of the little girl blowing bubbles is a quite wonderful
image. But it would be perfect with the plane
of focus set 1.5-2 inches further out, on her eyelashes.
For that kind of work, I would choose an SLR lens on an SLR that has been
tested/set for perfect mirror alignment and
focus screen placement. For static subjects, I would use a digital camera with
live view and 10x focus enlargement. It
becomes not film vs. digital image capture, but accuracy of focus.
Focal Opinion Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|