Well, today's glass is pretty good, as a whole, and most of it certainly is
good enough for 1000 pixel images posted on the web. Back in the day we made
prints, and prints can tell the tale of a good lens--up to a point. (I know,
Chuck, I know--lenses out resolve paper, but you know what I mean. <g>)
It also may be that we've talked glass so much that it's not that interesting
anymore because the glass that really stands out is glass most of us peasants
can't or won't afford.
I'm completely happy with my Nikon 24-70/2.8, and don't care if other lenses
get better test results. It does the trick for me, although I wouldn't mind if
it were a little lighter. <g> I haven't tried a largish print with a Fuji
X-100s shot yet, but I suspect I'll be more than happy with the quality.
And then there's software. All the de-convoluting and USMing and chromatic
correction and special plug-ins and perspective and distortion correction and
such more than make up for a lot of lens flaws, at least in my humble opinion.
But, alas, I believe it mostly is because these new lenses, particularly the
micro-lenses, just aren't very sexy. They do the job but they don't show any
style while they're doing it. Just not much there to talk about.
Your mileage may vary.
--Bob Whitmire
Registered Neanderthal
On Sep 15, 2013, at 5:03 AM, Moose wrote:
> That's one of the big differences between the digital age and film on this
> list - we hardly speak about lenses.
>
> Remember when threads about particular lenses and how they compare to other
> lenses would go on hot and heavy for days -
> or weeks?
>
> An announcement of a new Zuiko macro lens would elicit a flurry of posts. Oly
> announced the µ4/3 60/2.8, stating that it
> is as good as the ZD 50/2. I don't recall it even being mentioned here. I
> only became aware of it wandering about the web.
>
> Anybody know about its unique hood?
>
> I post an image from it, with 100% crop, and comparisons with other M.Z
> lenses, and get one response (Thanks, Chuck!):
>
> On 9/13/2013 5:04 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> All are very nice within their size domain.
>
> That's it? That's all anyone has to say about a new(ish) lens?
>
> I'm not complaining, just curious. Might it be that contemporary 4/3 and µ4/3
> lenses have reached a point of sufficiency
> such that differences don't matter much, to most of us, most of the time?
> Have all our eyes grown so old that most of us
> can't see the difference any more? :-(
>
> AG is, of course, still singing the praises of certain OM lenses, Mike weighs
> in with images form Bigfoot and its kin
> and Moose mind bending erudite contributions on DOF, motion blur, etc.
>
> And Joel had his recent Summer fling with a strange girl, the ZD 18-180,
> before abandoning her.
>
> But really not that much lens talk.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|