Thanks, Ken. I only got into the Oly club when I bought the E-510, so my
knowledge of earlier discoveries is rather limited. The E-510 finder seems
more transparent than frosted in characteristics, and that may be the
problem with the 28mm. It seems to work well with the 50mm. Today, I shot a
few photos with a Takumar 3.5/135mm, and it was much more difficult to focus
when compared to the 2.0/50. Looks like the 50 is where I need to be.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Manual Focus vs AF
> >
>> For a few days, I have tried a Takumar 1.8/55mm instead of the Leica-R
>> 2.8/28 that I use most of the time. I was amazed at the improved focusing
>> using the longer lens, even on the E-510 viewfinder. I think both the
>> shallower DOF and the increased max aperture both come into play here. I
>> have been trying to decide whether or not to spend the money for a used
>> Leica-R Summicron 2.0/50. For a lot of the photos that I take, it would
>> work
>> fine. I realize that there are OM lenses that would probably do as well,
>> but
>> I grew up using Leica glass and have an appreciation of it that is hard
>> to
>> break.
>>
>
>
> What seems like ancient history now, but years ago we discovered that the
> 2-series focus screens in the OM bodies had the disturbing characteristic
> of
> not really being focusable on the GG (ground glass) portion of the screen
> for lenses specifically in the 35mm focal length but for some other
> wide-angle lenses too. The 1-series screen with a 35mm lens was glorious
> to
> focus, but the 2-series screen didn't have a true ground-glass but that
> portion of the screen is actually an expanse of very very tiny
> microprisms.
> For some reason, those microprisms would not react properly to some
> wide-angle lenses. You can crank focus from one extreme to the other and
> the
> image changes very little.
>
> The focus screens in the E-series bodies use essentially 2-series screens
> and suffer a similar fate.
>
> Nikon and Minolta film cameras had a similar screen technology, but then
> to
> make them more properly show bokeh and more focusable with wide-angle
> lenses
> they deformed the surface of the microprisms to create enough random
> texture
> to make them more usable.
>
> No need to apologize for your appreciation of Leica lenses. In a similar
> vein, I have an appreciation of certain Zuikos. It's not that any one is
> "better" than the other, but that they are "different" than each other.
> Sure, when you do a proper comparative lens test (like DPR's) they'll
> match
> or even a lowly aftermarket Sigma may even beat a given favorite. But it's
> through usage that the characteristics (flaws) create a look which
> differentiates one from another.
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|