At 04:12 3/23/02, Tris Schuler wrote:
Unless you're thinking of starting your own lens-test site, stick with
what you have. Truth is, except for _very_ critical work there isn't
enough difference between the various 50mm's to fret over. You _might_ be
able to tell at a casual glance a picture made with an f/1.2 as opposed to
yours, but I don't know, and even if you could tell the difference the
price differential is outrageous.
You have an excellent lens there already. Use it happily..
Tris
Tris is right . . .
The differences among the multi-coated "standards" are not apparent until:
(a) Usage of *slow* extremely fine-grain films, *and*
(b) Camera shake is entirely eliminated, *and*
(c) Magnification of the negative or slide is at the edge or beyond *film*
MTF limits, *and*
(d) Side by side A/B comparisons are performed.
You won't be able to notice in 4x6 or 5x7 prints, no matter how well
printed. An 8x12 is just below the cross-over point. Magnification of the
film needs to be on the order of about 12X or greater. I don't worry about
which MC 50mm is on the body I'm using unless I'm shooting films such as
K-25, K-64, Velvia, Provia 100F, Astia, Scala 200X (@ EI 100 or 200), *and*
it's being done for making 11x16 prints. Reduce acuity slightly with
Ektachrome 160T (used for tungsten stuff) or E200 and it's all but
impossible to discern differences.
Mitigation of camera shake by using a sturdy tripod or an equivalent very
solid support is more important! I always *knew* this but the point wasn't
driven home until using shift lenses and making large super-gloss display
prints from extremely fine grain chromes. Read Gary Reese's description of
how he conducts his testing, the enlargement he uses, and the extent to
which he eliminates shake/vibration to keep these effects from confounding
his results.
-- John
< 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 >
|