I tend to agree with Winsor, Pictures from the conventional lenses seem
to 'look better' than those from the mirror lenses. I don't know whether
it's contrast pre se or alone. Gary's tests of the 400/6.3, 500/6 and
600/6.3 Olys and the 500/8 Tamron would lead one to expect better images
from the regular lenses both in contrast and resolution. Perhaps it's
partially in the 'way' the image goes 'out of focus'. We've already
noted the weird circular bokeh in obviously unfocused images on mirror
lenses. All areas out of the exact plane of focus are somewhat unfocused
depending on distance from the plane and they are unfocused in a
different way on mirror lenses. We came up with all the DOF rules
subjectively based on how images from conventional lenses look. Maybe we
are seeing a different kind of DOF effect? Har to test, since we can't
stop down the mirror lenses!
So a big, heavy conventional lens and sturdy tripod are definitely
better.....if you carry them with you and get the shot. If you leave
them home, they are much worse than small, light mirror lenses. Each
photographer will have a different answer to what is best, and often
different answers under different circumstances.
Moose
Daniel J. Mitchell wrote:
<snip>
It sounds as if mirror lenses have a whole lot of things against them in
terms of usability -- is the cheapness+lesser weight enough of a benefit, or
are they only really something you carry 'just in case'?
-- dan
< 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 >
|