One other thought on the 100/2.8 series...
The earlier ones are a little warmer. This may be due to the gradual
aging of the glass, but I find most of the earlier OM Zuikos to be
this way. The later version seems to be not necessarily "cool" in
colorcast, but more Nikon-like in neutrality. I prefer the earlier
ones for B&W photography.
As to contrast, the later ones are slightly contrastier. I see this as
the biggest difference between my 100/2.8 and the 100/2. The 100/2
will whap you upside the head with its contrast. For digital, my
experience has shown me that the lower contrast lenses are helpful as
they reduce scene contrast a tiny bit which gets more into the
narrower dynamic range of the sensor.
It's fascinating working the two lenses on my cameras. Both lenses
will "shimmer" the focus screen when you're in focus. (a sign of a
sharp lens). I find the 100/2.8 to give me a "friendlier" image than
the 100/2, but the 100/2 image is certainly more 3D.
--
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/
|