>
> Hmm... for the size of prints I usually make (rarely larger than 9.5x12in)
> the 35/2.0 looks more than good enough. I've never understood the point of
> pixel-peeping, especially for lenses to be used with film, but thank you
> C.H. Ling, your test images are as
> ever very useful.
>
I think this proves a point. Just get out and shoot. These things are
almost always more capable than I am of achieving great pictures.
> I sure love my 24/2.0, and your image shows the impressive performance
> even wide open for an almost 40-year old design.
Forty years ago we were landing men on the moon. We were not as technically
inferior back then as we think. There were many refinements through the
years--mostly in coatings and aspherical-shaped elements, but some lenses
reached the pinnacle of design early on. For the last 15 of those 40 years,
development has been in zoom lenses, anyway.
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/
|