Subject: | Re: [OM] 100/2 vs 90/2 |
---|---|
From: | "Alan" <atk@xxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | 5 May 2001 15:24:34 -0000 |
I'm a little (very?) surprise that a full frame 8x10 with the 90f2 would be "soft". I've taken quite a few pictures with the viv series 1 90 as full/half frame ports of people/animal and at 8x10 they are quite crisp (I'll try to scan one next week that I took last year). Often softness occurs with this lens due to my own poor technique the particular picture I'm thinking of I was lying down and well braced (didn't hurt that it was sunny and I was able to use a high shutter speed). I would think the olympus 90f2 is as good or better lens. I think I'm pretty picky - after all I still consider the 24 to be a bit soft at infinity.... and I consider the picture I took with the 21 (in the last tope) to also be a little soft though part of it is a scanning problem. Alan < 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 > |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | Re: [OM] 100/2 vs 90/2, Joel Wilcox |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Zuikos to avoid? (was 100/2 vs 90/2), Mike Lazzari |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [OM] 100/2 vs 90/2, andrew fildes |
Next by Thread: | Re: [OM] 100/2 vs 90/2, C.H.Ling |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |