Thanks for your comments Brian.
I did a few more tests this afternoon comparing the OM Zuiko 24/2.8 (MC) and
the 50/1.8 MIJ to the 14-45mm on the E-300.
There wasn't much to choose between them, if anything the 14-45 is a little
bit sharper than both the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 at roughly equivalent focal
length (25mm & 45mm) and same aperture. Of course the OM Zuikos were
designed to cover 4 times the area of the 14-45. Bokeh looked pretty much
identical. One surprise was that the 50/1.8 shots had a distinct green cast
in comparison to the 14-45 and the 24/2.8 with the WB set on 5300K for all
images. Another surprise was the exposure using the old Zuikos, the 24
looked pretty much identical to the 14-45 wide open and by f16 looked about
1/2 stop underexposed. The 50/1.8 looked about 1/2 stop underexposed at
f1.8 and about 1 stop underexposed at f16, so on the whole a pretty good
result.
...Wayne
>
> Nice photos. I especially like the one of the dried thistle
> seed-heads.
>
> Also the B&W shot.
>
> The bokeh of the shot of the rusty wire with grass in the
> rear is just what
> you'd get with any lens and a busy background like that is. I
> bet any lens will
> do about the same. The background is just too finely textured
> with a fine
> contrasty grid of dried grass stems. Period.
>
> And the shot of the back-lit leaves with little specks of
> bright sky showing
> through the tree canopy behind; well that bokeh is equally
> predictable; in fact
> I've got a very good lens or two which would yield lots worse
> bokeh in that
> situation. At least they are not "O"-rings !!
>
> Have fun Wayne. It's a whole another experience, not to mention
> convenience.
>
> Somebody mentioned using OM lenses on an E body.
>
> Although I am not on the position of being able to compare
> with ZD macro
> lenses, I am very happy with using a Zuiko 50/3.5 macro on
> the E-1 to copy
> old B&W (often sepia) prints. Old, as in more than 100 years old.
>
> I set the exposure evaluation mode to central mode only, and
> the EV to
> minus 1.7. Minus even more if there is a lot of bright white
> such as dresses
> that I want to catch the detail of. Although I can't work
> miracles, it's amazing
> how much detail is sometimes in these old prints. Most of them are
> professional studio prints and can be quite sharp, and
> usually printed "soft" I
> think it is; very non-contrasty anyway. The amateur photos
> however, were
> usually processed by a chemist (pharmacist to some people) or their
> contractor, and are often very contrasty. They are hard work
> to get nice.
>
> I am using these shots for web display. Just for fun I should
> get one or two
> printed full size on paper, to really test the copying..
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|