Keith:
It's the OM Zuiko 100/F2. At one time I was looking to get the Pen F
100/3.5, which is highly regarded. However, when the Pen F 70/2 came up
in fortuitous circumstances, I got that instead. Now, I have no more OM
money!! At least, if I use the Pen, I have the 100mm focal length covered.
While the Pen lenses are diminutive, I find them a little small
(especially the 38mm) and not so easy to handle. The OMZ lenses, being a
little bigger seem easier. The Pen F is not a light camera, so the OMZ
lenses don't change the balance too much.
Martin
keith_w wrote:
> Martin Walters wrote:
>> I finally picked up my OM to Pen adapter and new ball head in the
>> States. Soooo, I have posted a few pictures taken with my Pen F and some
>> OM Zuiko lenses, primarily the 100/2. They can be viewed at:
>> http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx/my_photos
>>
>> As tests of camera/lens and tripod/ball head, subjects were those close
>> at hand, i.e., plants around the house. The photos were neither taken
>> nor chosen for artistic merit. Also used the cat - as others seem to
>> have done recently - as a subject for some tests. Of course, he woke up
>> part way through and moved about, which didn't help. The B&W shots were
>> taken either hand held or with a monopod, the colour ones with a tripod.
>>
>> By chance, I also had a roll (Blacks/Fuji)in my OM2 to finish, so there
>> are a couple of comparison shots with the 100/2 on this camera.
>>
>> Films used were:
>> - Ilford FP5 400 ASA, developed and scanned as half-frame (grey scale)
>> at local pro shop;
>> - Blacks (Fuji) 400 ASA colour negative film, scanned as half-frame
>> (Picture CD) by W*lm*rt; and
>> - Fuji 200 ASA colour negative film (same process, same W*lm*rt).
>>
>> Interestingly, the half-frame scans end up being essentially the same
>> size (1024x1453 pixels) as the full-frame ones (1024x1544 pixels). To my
>> simple brain, this means that the scanners are effectively giving a
>> higher resolution scan for half-frame.\
>
> That 100mm is just fine! Great bokeh...
> Which lens is it? A Pemn F lens or some other one?
> I ask because you said you got an adapter for your Pen F.
> anyhow, I like them.
> when I get my F up and running, I'll post a few too.
>
> keith whaley
>
>
>> The photos are as they came from the labs, absolutely no
>> post-processing. With the colour film, I'm pleasantly surprised by the
>> lack of grain on all the scans (OM and Pen) and the resolution. The
>> Ilford, however, is full of grain, though I can remove it in
>> post-processing. This assessment is based on looking at them on my
>> (cheap) Dell LCD monitor, and not as prints.
>>
>> Other very subjective observations:
>> - the Pen viewfinder is quite bright and focussing is relatively easy
>> using OM lenses, though the central microprism area is useless (works
>> fine with F lenses);
>> - the aperture ring on the Pen lenses moves the other way to the OM
>> lenses.....;
>> - on my monitor, at least, photos taken using the wide angles (21/3.5.
>> 28/2) don't look anything special (especially the 28/2);
>> - the 100/2 seems to do equally well on both cameras, as do the longer
>> Tamrons (180, 300/2.8);
>> - the 135/3.5 also does well (as it does on the Oly digitals); and
>> - I like the Pen 70/2 (just acquired as a result of Iwert's subtle but
>> effective enabling).
>>
>> In retrospect, I should also keep better notes on which lenses I used.....
>>
>> Martin
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|