On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Glen Lowry wrote:
> Do you use all these lenses? [the three 24's]
Yes.
> In wanting to know whether or not this lens is sharp, I was most interested
> in its performance at the smaller aperatures.
IMO, my 24/2.0 is slightly sharper than my 24/2.8 SC between f/8-f/11.
> I've got a 24/2.8 (SC old and
> well used) that is not quite up to standard for everyday shooting, and was
> wondering if the 24/2 was sharper. Risking sacrilege, however, I might go
> on to say that even this lack of contrast can be useful in some cases.
I'll likewise risk 'exZuikommunication' and say that I love the 24/2.8
SC (and other low-contrast Zuikos), for many reasons (yes, subjective
ones, mainly the portrayal of depth, textures, skin, etc.),
but one may be that my contrast problems are usually on the side of
excess, not lack of. A contrasty lens (with contrasty light, and K64)
just compounds the problem, specially in color. One sees Kodak paying
attention to this particular problem with P&S AFs, and SLRs with
complex, low-contrast zooms with their higher contrast-than-plain Gold
"Royal Gold" series of films. I always wished slide film came in 3
contrast ranges, sorta like printing papers...
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|