Thanks for the test results. More data = more knowledge. So, #1 was
better than #4? Are you ready to sell me that turkey of a 180/2 ?? :>)
George
Giles wrote:
>
> I very recently did a little testing of some of my lenses.
>
> I tested the following:
>
> 1. 300mm f4.5 zuiko at f8
>
> 2. 300mm f4.5 zuiko atf8 + 1.4xTC
>
> 3. 500mm f8 Tamron mirror lens
>
> 4. 180mm f2 Zuiko + 1.4 TC
>
> The test subject was a hillside some distance away - OM4Ti, self timer, spot
> metering the same area and a tripod. I stuck with f8 as my primary aim was to
> compare 2 and 3.
>
> I used Fuji Reala as that is what was in the camera at the time and I wanted
> results
> I could scan.
>
> Of course there was some variation in the prints thanks to the processor
> doing it's
> thing and so I intend to repeat the test with slide film.
>
> However I may also get the prints re done as I learnt afterwards that the
> processor
> can be set to provide no exposure or colour adjustment.
>
> Despite the processors input I think the results are meaningful enough for
> some
> tentative conclusions.
>
> I personally am more interested in contrast than sharpness so I would rank the
> results as 1,4,2,3.
>
> In terms of sharpness I would rank the results 4,1,2,3 though 4 and 1 and 2
> and
> 3 are a close calls. Projecting slides should settle it.
>
> The colour balance with the zuikos was very consistent. The Tamron produced a
> slight but distinct magenta cast to the image which I find distasteful. I
> personally prefer 2 over 3. Although the superior contrast and sharpness of
> 2 over
> 3 is very slight, there is a certain "something" (flatness?) about the image
> produced by the Tamron which puts me off.
>
> The image which clearly strikes me as the best is 1. Laid side by side it
> clearly
> stands out from the rest.
>
> This may sound heretical but I am beginning to think that cropping and
> enlarging an
> image taken without a TC may give superior results to using one.
>
> I have used the 2 combination wide open and the results are perfectly
> acceptable to
> me. However, I will bet they wouldn't touch the image quality with a Tamron
> 400mm f4
> with a barge pole but a lens in your hand has got to be worth 100 you don't
> have.
>
> As I said, I think we might be better off with enlargements rather than TCs.
> I would like to emphasise that my results are tentative as my methodology was
> imperfect. I shall report back when I have done a better job with slide film.
>
> Giles
>
> > I have read Gary's test results for the 300mm + 1,4x and 2x Oly TCs, also
> > I've seen that the 1,4x is matched for the 300mm. From Gary's tests I gather
> > that both TCs will cost two stops in exposure time, and that it's difficult
> > to focus with the diafragm wide open. Can anyone shed a light on this from
> > experience? I.e. how do you think it focuses and performs in actual wildlife
> > shooting as opposed to the test bench. Also, the F-grades with the diafragm
> > wide open are slightly worrying. Is performance really that poor?
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|