I enjoy the nattering.....keep it coming.
> On April 29, 2020 at 11:47 PM Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Lovely image, Ken!!
> On 4/29/2020 8:00 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
> > Very nice sharpness, indeed.
> Yes, it's very sharp, but that's only part of its magic. It is very flat
> field and, @ f8 about as good in the corners as
> in the center. A really wonderful copy lens.
> > How close does it focus?
> Without extension tube, bellows, etc. it focuses to 1:2 = 0.5x. I have
> several MF macro lenses. I did a careful test of
> them @ 1:2 and 1:1 on the FF Canon 5D. In addition to the MF lenses, I
> included a Tamron 90/2.8 AF lens.
> The OM 50/3.5 was the winner @ 1:2, although only by a whisker. The Tamron
> was very close. The Tamron focuses directly
> to 1:1. Using a tube for the 50/3.5, it was good @ 1:1, but not as good as
> the Tamron. I believe it is optimized for 1:2.
> A really interesting thing is that, like a lot of newer lenses, and unlike
> older designs, the Tamron was sharpest wide
> open or @ f4, while the OM was best @ f8-f11. For some uses, other than
> working with flat copy, the OM is better, giving
> more DoF, while the Tammy works better in poor light.
> I could natter on about MF macro lenses . . .
> > On 4/29/20 9:37 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> >> http://zone-10.com/d1/node/346
> >> One of the questions about the OM Zuiko series of lenses is whether or
> >> not the more common and affordable 50mm F3.5 Macro lens is sharp. I'm
> >> of the opinion that this lens is actually one of the sharpest lenses
> >> of any form in the OM Zuiko line.
> Yup. I have two, just in case something bad happens to one.
> >> <>
> >> Honestly, I don't really know how sharp the lens is as it had exceeded
> >> the resolving capability of any digital camera and film I've used.
> It's not just sharpness, an undefined measure. Shooting a section of high
> quality text, there are subtle differences in
> edge qualities and subtle distortions. Some of the differences I saw between
> lenses were things for which I didn't have
> names. Rendition of the paper texture between characters also differs between
> So, yes, there were ways in which the image was not perfect @ 100% on a 13 MP
> sensor. But amazingly good!
> Same is true of many µ4/3 lenses. Using the HR Mode on an E-M5 II, it's clear
> that they far out resolve any of the
> existing 4/3 sensors. Shoot in HR, downsample to sensor size, and the images
> are significantly better than a direct
> shot. Most/much of this is elimination of the resolution loss of Bayer arrays.
> Close Up 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/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/