Yup, sure looks like a toss-up to me. Often the differences we believe we
prefer are relevant only in certain circumstances - a particular type of
backlighting situation, etc. So whether a particular lens is "superior"
really depends on how often we shoot under that situation.
And that size difference ... yup ... definitely familiar with that. My
Can-not-an-OM-on 50 lenses are nearly twice the size of the Zuiko.
In light of the concurrent thread regarding chromatic aberration, I see just
a hint of blue fringing in the white highlights on both scans. Probably due
to the scanner and possibly even my monitor. Just goes to show how pesky
that blue wavelength can be. And it's probably not worth worrying about.
Lex
===
From: Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] "Bokeh" in context
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 08:29:49 -0500
Sometimes I think the only reason I keep my modest little Nikon system
going is a very beat up Nikkor 85/1.8 (with only six blades) that plays
second fiddle to no lens in its class (i.e., Zuiko 85/2; not sure the 90/2
isn't in a class by itself). Also, the 55/2.8 micro ain't no buffalo chip.
Here's a bakeoff between the Nikkor 85/1.8 AI and Zuiko 85/2:
http://avalon.net/~jdub/bokeh.htm
Need I say, however, that the Nikkor is twice as big as the Zuiko?
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
< 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 >
|