In a message dated 2000-02-01 6:01:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
image66@xxxxxxx writes:
<< Back to lenses, just because two lenses might spec out nearly identically,
the character and individuality comes out. For example, just because a
zoom lens might reach 35mm/2.8 and have identical
resolution/distortion/contrast tests as a prime doesn't mean the photos
will be identical. The optics used to achieve those results are completely
different and will have different bokeh and sense of presence. In my book,
no zoom ever achieves the look of a good prime. To me, the zooms look
"organic" in comparison, even though the specs may be as good, if not
better. Take the 100/2.8 for example and compare its images at F5.6 to any
zoom at the 100/5.6 setting.
Ken Norton
>>
I'm not so sure about that Ken. I recall seeing Zeiss MTF curves on one of
their early zooms (a 40-80 or so) that seemed to imply that while a zoom
might get close to a prime over much of it's range, there could be a point
(or even points) in it's range where it could "surpass" a near equivalent
fixed lens--because all that glass is in it's "sweet" spot. Another example
is the 35-80F2.8 Olympus lens--there's no doubt that it has substantial
barrel distortion at 35 mm and substantial pincushion distortion at 80 mm.
But that implies there is a point between 35 and 80 where there is NO
distortion! Would anyone know what that point might be? Because it may also
be especially sharp (as in very high contrast and resolution/MTFs) there.
Having said all that, I have to confess only in the last year have I
purchased and used zooms to any extent. My one prior experience with the OM
75-150SC was a severe disappointment. Initial impression of the 65-200 are
very favorable--but more testing to do.
Alex
< 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 >
|