Hi James:
> Are the results people get with the 300/4.5 zuiko, as well as the
> results using the 1.4 converter good enough to go for this lens?/?/?
I'll be testing that combo tomorrow night as part of Lens Test 4. Also
getting tested:
100mm f/2.8 w/ 2X
135mm f/3.5 w/ 2X
200mm f/4 SC
200mm f/4 w/ 2X
200mm f/5 w/ 2X
300mm f/4.5 w/ 1.4X
300mm f/4.5 w/ 2X
100-200mm f/5
@100mm
@100mm w/ 2X
@150mm
@150mm w/ 2X
@200mm
@200mm w/ 2X
90mm f/2.5 Tamron
90mm f/2.5 Tamron w/ Tamron 2X
90mm f/2 Zuiko Macro
90mm f/2 Zuiko Macro w/ 1.4X
90mm /2 Zuiko Macro w/ 2X
90mm f/2 Zuiko Macro w/ 1.4 & 2X
75-150mm f/4
@75mm
@100mm
@150mm
In time there will also be a test of the 350mm f/2.8 with and without the
1.4X. If I had access to a Tamron 300mm f/2.8, I'd probably want to test
that, too.
This evening I did all the above focal lengths of 100mm or less. I used a 1-8
all matte telephoto screen and a Varimagnifinder. I was very impressed with
the crispness and ease of focus of the 90mm f/2, even without the
Varimagnifinder. Interestingly, my 1-13 screen gave an inferior groundglass
image. If the detail I could see through the viewfinder at 2.5X finder
magnification is any indication of lens performance, this is going to have
great results. But perhaps it was just the brightness associated with the
maximum aperture, since a decreasing order of crispness was: 90mm f/2, 90mm
f/2.5, 75-150 f/4 zoom @100mm, then the 100-200mm f/5 zoom @100mm. Also a
factor: the ability of the lens to render fine detail wide open.
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 >
|