Neo-Organic Moose (aren't meese vegetarians?) wrote:
> Well, I may have been wrong. Still, I've never seen a difference in lenses
> that I would describe that way.
> Sounds more Mad Ave. than meaningful.
Well, since somebody else described my writing skills as being
suitable for ad copy today...
> The effect of the lens, beyond the effect of focal length on
> perspective, has to be so minimal as to be visible only to those with very
> special, imaginative vision.
Ah, to the contrary! Even you talk about how nasty the bokeh is in
some of the Zuiko lenses.
> I'm betting that with a subject where the perspective doesn't change, neither
> you nor I could tell the
> difference in a 'blind' viewing between Zuiko 28/2 and 35/2 at different
> distances, such that image size
> is the same in an 8x10 print, or even 12x16".
Maybe, maybe not. At most "normal" working distances and apertures,
the differences wouldn't mean a hoot. But focus on a subject 2 meters
away and wide-open, I'm pretty sure that you'll see differences
emerge. About my first comment about the 28/2 was the OOF highlights.
They definitely do not have the same "organic" nature that other
lenses can generate. Most certainly not as pleasant as the 35-80/2.8
zoom.
Which is something else that I mentioned a few days ago when Joel
posted his September Zuikofest photos. The 35-80 shots have a very
distinct signature that most people wouldn't notice unless they've
spent significant time with that lens learning it's idiosyncrasies.
The 28/2 is just like that. I'm getting image characteristics from
this lens which I've never seen from any other of my Zuikos before.
And it's not JUST at F2, either.
> Both were designed at the same time, by the same people, with the same
> materials and resources
> available to them and the same vision of what results should look like.
Then explain why the lenses are so different?
> Sure, a Zeiss would look different, but more or less 'organic', especially as
> defined above?
But, why? Didn't you just talk about being able to identify...
> But I may not have been wrong, if Andrew chooses to weigh in with his
> definition. :-)
Come on, give him a break. He's probably still sleeping.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|