Joel eaked out a comparison:
>Here's a bakeoff between the Nikkor 85/1.8 AI and Zuiko 85/2:
>Need I say, however, that the Nikkor is twice as big as the Zuiko?
I noticed a difference in subject size. This probably has everything to do
with size of the lens. A distant subject would have been identical.
As far as the bokeh is concerned, this is pretty typical of the Nikkors, in
that they sacrifice bokeh for "apparent" DOF. I've known the older Minolta
glass to be similar. In this example, they are so close as to be nearly
identical. I wouldn't have know which was which if you put them up without
descriptions.
As much as I like the bokeh of my 100/2.8 is it enough to keep me committed
to the OM line? Unknown, but I'm really torn between going to medium
format and getting a full-blown Nikon F5 system with big honkin glass.
Size and weight of a Contax or Mamiya 645 AF is about the same as an F5 or
EOS-1n.
Ken Norton
< 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 >
|