No
I couldn't say that one was better than the other.
Chris
On 26 Aug 2004, at 17:12, Walt Wayman wrote:
> Last summer I did a short series (about half a roll of Provia 100F) of
> test shots to compare the 90/2 Zuiko and the 90/2.8 Tamron macros. I
> couldn't tell any real difference. Now, since the bokeh subject has
> reared its fuzzy head again, and because the 90/2 Zuiko is said by
> many to have the most wonderful bokeh, I'm putting up a couple of
> shots, one taken with each lens. About the only things these lenses
> have in common is that they both have nine-blade diaphragms.
>
> These are straight scans, with no sharpening or other adjustments
> whatsoever, of a deliberatly chosen "difficult" subject in fairly
> harsh lighting. For some reason, although scanned at 2700 d.p.i.
> before being JPGed down to 800 pixels wide, they look kinda "soft." I
> promise, though, that they are equally sharp and have oodles of
> detail. But anyway, I'm doing this only for the bokeh, so "soft"
> don't much matter.
>
> If anybody can see any difference, I hope they'll 'splain it to me. I
> guess I'm just not all that sensitive, because bokeh has never been
> that important to me. Unless it's really bad and/or the subject is
> really boring, I usually don't even notice it.
>
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID
> -724214.html
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID
> -724215.html
>
> Walt, the bokeh clod
>
>
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|