On 11 Aug 98, at 17:57, Wiese wrote:
<snip some interesting thoughts..)
>
> P.S. Any reason people seem to prefer the Zuiko 35/2.8 over the 35/2, or am
> I imagining things?
I don't think you're imagining things, although I think it's partly a
case of price and availability (as with many other f2.8s vs f2s), and
the fact that many common uses of the 35mm length don't require
that extra stop. The 35/2.8 seems to hold its own very well against
the 35/2 in terms of sharpness and contrast. I do recall Giles
mentioning the 35/2 as a great lens, but it's obviously not that
common - I've never seen one in 20 years since starting with an
OM-2, and I've seen several 24/2s in that time.
At one point, I was considering dumping my 35/2.8 after a series of
disappointing backlit shots. My early model is SC, and quite flare
prone compared to my MC 50/1.8. Since I have recognised the
weakness in my example, I have had some very good results with
it, including a recent near sunset shot, where I was able to shade
then lens with my hand. I enlarged this shot to beyond 16x20 and
was quite impressed with the sharpness and contrast, even at the
edges. (shot at f/11)
Also, I recently shot a roll of Elite II for an upcoming school colour
brochure - the sharpness and colours of the 35/2.8 are very good,
although I suspect the N*k*n slide scanner I used doesn't do it
justice. I'm waiting to see a printers proof to see if the slide should
be scanned on a better unit.
Can anyone tell me if using a 1400dpi scan from a Nikon coolscan
is sufficient for 4 colour glossy printing at about 6x9" size?
Shawn & Janis Wright
swright@xxxxxxxxx
http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
(Olympus List Archives)
< 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 >
|