Brian, have you been happy with previous results from the OM4Ti and
those lenses? If so, it sounds like something is awry with the body
or the processing.
That said, I'm glad you're getting good results from your 14-45!
And I've held forth before on "comparisons" and "tests". IMO, they're
truly useful only if all the variables are controlled and consistent.
Even then the outcome is subject to interpretation but at least it's
based on "apples to apples". YMMV
ScottGee1
On 12/2/06, Brian Swale <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello all
>
> Looks as though I have to eat humble pie regarding my condemnation of the
> DZ 14-45 lens on the E-1.
>
> I was convinced that a Zuiko on the OMO4Ti would beat it hollow on the
> same topic (Roses,
> http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/photography/zuikoholics/recent5.htm )
>
> but I have to admit that is possibly not the case. I took nearly a full roll
> of
> Fuji Reala 100 asa on those same blooms a couple of days later and I am
> NOT happy with the results. I do acknowledge that the lighting conditions
> were different. Overcast with nearly no direct light from the sun for the E-1
> shots. Ideal.
> There was a lot of direct sunlight for the OM shots and for some I shaded the
> flowers with my hands.
> I had thought the Zuiko 100/2 at F/8 would be sharp, but it did not provide
> the
> depth of field, and I'm not too sure about the sharpness either. The leaf
> detail
> was bad, and with the direct lighting, the shiny leaves were all blown out.
>
> 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.
> However, I Do know the DZ 14-45 is not good for distant landscapes,
> whereas the Zuiko 35~105 is tack sharp even at 12 x 18.
>
> Buy the way, all prints made in the same lab, same Fuji machine.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers, Brian
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|