Walt Wayman wrote:
This thread mystifies me a little. I can't see that there is any way to
have a chance of seeing what's really going on in such a reduced size
file. A full pixel sample of the upper left part from a full res scan
would be much more useful. At the size presented, it is a nice image
with a very little flare/CA/purplization/who knows what, which doesn't
detract from it.
>I was a little mystified that the Canonites didn't seem to be pursuing this
>lens as eagerly as they were the 21/2 Zuiko in their quest for a decent WA for
>their big-sensored diggie thingies. I love the 21/2, but if it's a 10, I
>would rate the 17/3.5 Tamron an 8.5, giving it a little bonus for extra
>coverage and a small deduction for speed and contrast, with resolution being
>about even. But that's just based on my two examples, and I'm no lens tester.
>
>
Those FF Can*n folks are pixel peeping right out to the edges at a level
of resolution that can only matter for VERY large prints or huge crops.
In addition, they are testing on a sensor that resolves more than normal
films AND has troubles with light rays that come in at shallow angles,
such as those at the edges from non-telelcentric super wides.
Technically, their interest probably exceeds any practical needs 99% of
them will ever have. I, however, refrain from any judgements about these
interests, as I have had and may still have certain similar compulsive
proclivities with different details.
Also, most of the test shots I've seen are photographic junk in terms of
composition, subject, lighting, etc., which may or may not mean
anything. Somehow, for me, looking to see which image detail of the
roadside trash on an uninteresting street shows a small margin in edge
resolution is less appealing than looking at attractive pictures.
Nonetheless, their test shots do show differences at the far margin of
performance. There is a mildly fanatical aspect in that some have been
known to buy so many of certain Zuikos as to push up the price, test
them all, keep the best, sell off the runners-up to their friends and
put the rest back on the 'Bay. And by the way, the 21/3.5, at its best,
is a very close runner up to the best Zeiss (21/4?).
Anyway, sidetrips aside, I don't think you can see from your lenses, on
film or E-1, what they are seeing on their 1Ds IIs. I suspect that may
be a good thing. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|