Interesting. Almost what you could call different images. Colors are at
odds, depth of field much more noticeable with the Coolscan III, perhaps
even a touch better shadow detail with the latter. I want to say the
highlights are distinct (well, they must be) but couldn't quite pick that
out well enough to describe it in detail.
As for third-party lenses: these may or may not be of (or above) Zuiko
quality. One shot's not going to show that either way. Certainly lens
design has come a ways in the past quarter century as the science has built
upon its history of development, aided along the way with CAD and what
newer more exotic materials, etc. Still, Zuikos hold up very well--as does
the other quality glass out there, and there's plenty of it.
Tris
I have a Sigma 70-210 f/2.8 APO which I'm pretty fond of. I know Sigma has
a dismal reputation for build quality, but this particular design seems
pretty substantial. I picked it up as part of a set and it has turned out
to be one of the few items that I kept.
I haven't run critical side by side tests with, say, my Zuiko 100/2.8 or 2.0
or 180/2.8, but my impression is that the image quality is pro level. See
for instance http://members.home.com/captaintombrooks/mustang.htm (I know,
its impossible to judge a lens from a web-sized digital image. . .) I would
prefer to own a Tamron, just for the build reputation, but I'm happy with
this lens. It really is a joy to shoot, mostly due to the bright image,
though both rings turn the wrong direction.
I do have a Tamron 400/4 which is indeed a spectacular lens. I use an OM
1.4X-A with it just because the Tamron 1.4x SP TC is such a pain. The focus
turns the correct direction on it.
Gary Edwards
< 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 >
|