I haven't persoanally done any star field shots but George Anderson has
tested a few lenses in this way. This doesn't answer your question
exactly, but you might find it of some interest.
GMA wrote:
>>>
1) 35-80/2.8 Exp: I received my (used) copy of this lens on Fri,
shot the remaining half of a roll with it on Sat/Sun and, after examining
the slides under a loop today, I can say that this is **the best**
all-around Zuiko I've used. And you'll see from the rest of this list that
I've used some good ones. I was totally amazed at the star test results I
saw today. Wide open star images on this lens are at least as good those
from the 90/2 and 50/2 - and this is a zoom! I've also seen some results
from this lens used for portraiture, etc and it is wonderful. Pure bokeh.
**
The 35-80 is apro-grade lens, producing B+ to A grades almost
exclusively. The same can't be said of the 35/2. The zoom is as good or
better wide open than the prime is at F/4, so you actually gain a stop!
The 35-80 has no coma at F/2.8. The 35/2 has plenty at 2 and 2.8 and
still some left at F/4.
Now for the downside: it is heavier, it costs more and it has one
unfortunate problem, pronounced barrel distortion around 35mm. I have
seen it in one slide and it is a problem. The prime has some barrel
too. Of course, this is a problem only with obvious straight lines near
the edge of the frame. In my case, an ocean horizon. Perhaps I'll scan
<<<
Giles
Rainer Wagner wrote:
> Hi all,
> is anybody using a 35/ 2 Zuiko? Better or worse than the 2.8?
> What about the edge performance wide open? Has anybody tried starfield
> shots? Thanks for your help!
< 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 >
|