In a message dated 1/22/99 9:52:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cnocbui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
<< Now that we have seen the results of Gary's wonderful selfless efforts I
thought I
would see what others value most in a lenses performance.>>
Yes, Thanks Gary. I almost bought a 100-200/5 the other day. Excellent+
condition (mint cosmetics, a little bit of dust, lots of zoom creep). Local
dealer had it for $126. Probably could have talked him down to $110 or so.
After interpreting your tests I think I'll keep looking. Maybe an 85-250?
<< For me, contrast is possibly more important than absolute resolution, even
though
the latter seems to be the criteria most people seem to value the most.>>
I agree with Giles here. I rarely blow up anything bigger than 8x10. Even the
dreaded S Zuikos (I have the 28-48 and 35-70/4) do well, from a resolution
standpoint, at that size. I suspect that most people look at resolution first
because it's a relatively easy to understand concept, and more easily
quantifiable.
<< Sometimes I wonder if my notion of contrast is technically correct or
whether I
misunderstand the term. I take contrast as a reference to a lenses ability
to
render colour accurately. A sort of dynamic range for rendering colour with
a high
contrast lens having the ability to render as distinct, very subtle
differences in
shading while at the same time being able to render heavily saturated
colours.
Lower contrast lenses I take to be those which have a low colour dynamic
range which
do not render subtle shadings of colour well and which don't render very
saturated
colours accurately.
Does my notion of contrast match what others mean by the term?>>
This (qualifying/quantifuing lens performance) is an area I am definitely not
an expert in, but let me try anyway (I was never accused of being shy with my
opinions!)
More or less. I agree with your description of contrast as being related to
dynamic range. I never thought of it as being strongly related to colo(u)r,
though. I always thought of it as a function of luminosity, as opposed to hue
or even saturation (I always found it easier to think of colors using the HSL
model). A lens with low contrast will tend to lose detail in areas where the
differentiator is luminosity, as opposed to colo(u)r (hue, saturation).
I think film choice has a *lot* more impact on colo(u)rs than a lens ever
will. Another reason I don't think it is closely related to colo(u)r is that I
think I could tell a low contrast lens from a high contrast one even using B&W
film. Just my (very humble) opinion, of course.
<< Now Gary, if you could just try...
;-) >>
I think Gary's earned a vacation...
Paul Schings
Coventry, RI
< 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 >
|