Hi Simon:
> I value the lightness of my 135mm F3.5 and
> I'm prepared to sacrifice some screen brightness in order to get it. But
am
> I also losing picture quality by using a cheap lens. Could anyone tell the
> difference between pics taken at F8 on cheap/expensive Zuikos of the same
> focal length?
I still haven't made a comparison between the 135 mm f/3.5 Zuiko and the 135
mm f/4.5 Macro Zuiko, but I intend to do so when I find a good flat planed
subject and some time and film on my hands.
I did compare four approaches to 50 mm focal length photography. I shot a
USGS topographic map from about 4 feet (1:20 magnification) on Agfachrome
RSX50 slide film with blue photofloods exposed at E.I. 100. I corrected the
focus with a Varimagnifinder. I used (all at f/5.6) a:
50 mm f/2.0 Macro Zuiko
50 mm f/1.8 Zuiko (single coated)
50 mm f/1.4 Zuiko (single coated)
35-70 mm f/3.5~4.5 Zoom Zuiko at 50 mm
The macro was an order of magnitude better than the others, primarily due to
higher resolution. It still wasn't quite what I expected from years of
Kodachrome 40 microfilming, despite really weighting down the tripod and
locking up the mirror. I suspect that a finer grain film would have brought
out more detail. (I did some on Velvia, but haven't finished the roll). The
zoom had the most contrast, but was an order of magnitude lower in resolution
than the non zooms and two orders lower than the macro. However, the apparent
contrast increase in the zoom was partially attributable to a darker image due
to lower transmittance and increased edge light fall off. On the plus side,
the center and far edge seemed remarkably equal in performance.
The f/1.8 was a hair sharper than the f/1.4 at the edges, but equal in the
center. Neither had very contrasty images.
Conclusion: use the 50 mm Macro whenever possible.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|