Dawid Loubser wrote:
> ..., the quality of the 20/3.5 (on all aspects of image quality) is
> stupendously good, as long as you use the lens
> at relatively wide apertures. Have not done scientific testing, but from
> images I actually get the impression that wide open it's already at peak
> performance.
>
The diffraction mavens have previously opined that the 20/3.5 is indeed
already slightly diffraction limited at f3.5 and gets progressively
softer as it is stopped down. As I recall, speculation was that the 20/2
replaced the f3.5 in part to avoid diffraction limiting, but only wide open.
Just repeating as well as memory allows some threads that are in the
archives.
> Oh, and another question - what do you guys do to tame vibrations from an
> OM-1 when using a lens like this for natural-light work? (i.e. shutter speeds
> anything from 0.5 to 20 seconds) ? I thought my old Linhof tripod was
> reasonably solid, but even with mirror lockup,
>
Others have already weighed in with excellent advice. To make it
perfectly clear, an OM-2 or OM-2n is no improvement on the OM-1(n) for
vibration. You must go to an OM-2s (why it's called an OM-2_ is a
mystery to me), OM-4 series, OMPC (OM-40) or OM2000 body and use the
self timer to pre-fire mirror and aperture to reduce camera induced
vibration.
Also, a bag filled with lead shot (coated for your health) will be more
effective than light things like lentils, rice, etc. When used on a
tripod mounted, i.e. horizontal, camera, be sure to have it resting on
both body and lens.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|