Don't forget that cropping involves the film and scan resolution as well
as the lens contribution. As good as the Zuiko 35-80 is reputed to be,
a severely cropped 80mm image from it could never match the final print
quality of a full frame 75-150 image shot at 150mm. At 80mm the cropped
area from the 35-80 image is little more than 1/4 the size of the 150mm
image. This would be expecting the 35-80, film and scanner combo to
produce double the resolution of the 70-150. It would be like expecting
a 16x20 to look as sharp and crisp as an 8x10. Won't happen.
Assuming you do not have unlimited funds, better you should spend your
money on a greater range of good quality but less expensive lenses than
putting all your eggs in one very expensive basket. If a stable of good
Zuikos is too expensive there's lots of very good, inexpensive stuff out
there from the likes of Tamron, Kiron and others.
Chuck Norcutt
Siddiq wrote:
> let's say I have the ability to get 3600*2400pixel 36bit scans, and am
> looking at some new glass. would be better to get a higher quality lens w/
> less range (let's suppose 35-80) or get something not quite as nice, but
> better than run-of-the-mill (say 75-150). please note i am just using the
> two mentioned oly lens only for focal length demonstration, so actual
> performance of said lenses is moot). would you rather have the wider
> availability and crop to emulate "longer focal length" given the wider
> lens is also the one with an alphabet soup of acronyms and is faster? or
> get the longer variable aperture decent but not world-class lens with more
> range since you will be able to fill the frame completely (but lose on the
> wide end). the pro lens, if of course, more expensive. what would you do?
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|