It just occurred to me that the 500/8 picture I linked to in my earlier
response was shot hand-held, with the lens sort of halfway braced on the
railing on the balcony of a fifth floor condo, obviouisly under an overcast
sky, so with ISO 100 film, the shutter speed was certainly less than one would
wish for, and probably about 1/125, so that shot may be less sharp than it
oughta be.
For those who may not remember or have seen the bluebird photos that Brian
referred to, they are here, which should prove that the 500/8 is a capable
lens, even on the E-1, where it becomes the equivalent of a 1000mm lens on a
full-frame camera. These shots are, of course, without more atmospheric
interference than 30 feet of late winter Atlanta air imposes, so should be
revealing of the true capabilities of this lens. And focusing with the KatzEye
screen, with a split prism that doesn't black out at f/8, makes it really
pretty easy.
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1079.jpg
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1080.jpg
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: hiwayman@xxxxxxx (Walt Wayman)
> Sorry about the bounced e-mails, Brian. I don't even have a "safe list" and
> so
> intentionally exclude no one, and I have the spam to prove it. I don't know
> why
> that is happening.
>
> In any event, I regret that I'm not going to be of much help regarding
> far-distant shots with the 500/8, or just about any long lens, for that
> matter.
> I hadn't really thought about it until your recent experiences, but most of
> my
> tele shots are at fairly close range, anywhere from 15 feet to maybe one or
> two
> hundred yards. With either of the E-things, I haven't shot anything more
> than
> 50 feet away with the 500/8. In fact, the furthest I've aimed it and fired
> off
> a shot that I can locate right now is this one, made on Provia 100F with an
> OM-4T a couple of years ago at a range of about 150 yards:
>
> http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1109.jpg
>
> I suspect your biggest problem is atmospheric. Try a few shots of nearby
> stuff
> with the 500 and expect it to be a little flatter and slightly less sharp
> than
> with the "real" lenses. If the flatter and less sharp are more than a little
> and slightly, you may have a lens with a problem. However, looking at the
> long-range photo you posted, that's pretty much what I'd expect shooting
> through
> that much air, even yours, and anything close to that would be impossible
> through the stuff that passes for air here most days.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
