At 10:41 AM 11/7/1999 -0600, Joel wrote:
>
>As for sharpness, there are more variables in my technique to affect
>this than the difference between an A- and a B+, if you know what I
>mean. ;-)
I have often wondered if having a sharper lens is wasted on me hand
holding a lot of shots. Just how steady does one have to be to really
capture a particular level of sharpness? Chromatic effects and contrast
may be the aspects that are more important. For example, the 180/2.8
versus the 180/2 seem a lot different to me. Or perhaps the 180/2 asks
me to mount it on the tripod mort than the 180/2.8. However, comparing
both on the tripod, the 180/2 seem vastly superior. Is this sharpness,
contrast, chromatic aberation, or what? I also have a contaxt G2 and
the Carl Zeise lenses render very nice photos.
An example of chromatic aberation in the Zuiko 21/2 lens can be seen at:
http://users.tp.net/wayne
This photo, with 21/2 is the same location as my aditl2 phto was taken.
In the left and right detail, you can see some chromatic aberation
(assume that is the correct term?). The Left detail shows red tint on
the left edge of the whites, while the Right detail, they are reversed.
Since the aberation effects the edges in the picture, I wonder if our
eyes perceive that more easily, and hence feel a lens is better or
worse?
Wayne
Hopkinton, MA
< 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 >
|