Brian Swale wrote:
> <snip>
> I had thought the Zuiko 100/2 at F/8 would be sharp, but it did not provide
> the
> depth of field,
I don't remember all the details, but DOF with the smaller sensor is
generally greater than with FF film. With the 100/2 at f8 and the DZ at
f9, and assuming the coverage is about the same, the DZ image will have
more DOF.
> and I'm not too sure about the sharpness either.
Since both lenses are inherently sharper at the focal plane at those
f-stops than can be fully held by a 6x8 print, I'm not sure how you can
tell.
> The leaf detail
> was bad, and with the direct lighting, the shiny leaves were all blown out.
>
Blown out highlights in this context have nothing whatsoever to do with
the lens. It could be in part due to incorrect exposure. Beyond that,
color neg film has enormous over exposure latitude, so the fault is
almost certainly mostly in the adjustment/operation of the automated
printing equipment. This is very common with consumer printing
equipment, where dynamic range is sacrificed to snappy contrast and
saturation in the mid-tones.
> I was especially disappointed with the Zuiko 35~105; it did not have the
> normal close focus I thought it had, so I used the macro facility this lens
> has. Not good for 6 x 8 prints.
This is not my experience with this lens. The so-called "macro"
capability is pretty limited, but I've had sharp results. Are you sure
your technique is right? DOF decreases as you focus closer.
>
> However, I Do know the DZ 14-45 is not good for distant landscapes,
I don't have one, but that flies in the face of everything I've read
about it.
>
> whereas the Zuiko 35~105 is tack sharp even at 12 x 18.
>
Indeed.
> Buy the way, all prints made in the same lab, same Fuji machine.
>
But not the same process. The film had to be scanned before being
printed. My experience with consumer grade scanning is not encouraging.
That may well be where the highlights were lost.
> The DZ lens had good detail and depth of field at f/9.
>
> I guess it's a case of horses for courses; knowing even more aspects of my
> gear matters more than ever now.
>
> BTW, the 21/3.5 Zuiko with the impacted rear element now has to undergo
> more testing. Shots of close subjects - a house wall - seemed OK, but
> landscapes printed at 6 x 8 seem distinctly soft all over. I expected a lot
> better.
>
Your unexamined faith in this magic printing machine is touching. Your
faith may be misplaced. I have yet to see a consumer print that comes
even close to what I find on the film itself with a proper scan. I've
posted this link before, in fact, it's so old that the scan was done on
my 2700 dpi scanner. The same shot scanned at 4000 dpi shows a bit more
detail. yet
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Scan/PrintvsScan/pages/FBVSFS.htm>.
The print is an optical print from Kodak's Royal print service. Given
this lack in smaller consumer prints, how can one hope to evaluate lens
sharpness from them? It's like trying to read through a dirty window.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|