Hi Ken, C.H. and all,
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>The 25/1.4 is one expensive hunk of glass, but for good reason. It is
simply
>amazing and when push comes to shove it offers a two stop advantage over
>anything else (F2.8 vs F1.4). That two stops buys a lot of high-ISO noise
>advantage. And then there is that little thing of bokeh and DoF...
This is an interesting lens. It even has a 'classic' aperture setting ring!
But, strangely, I'm not a fan of the 50mm-equiv. FOV.
>Technology keeps marching on and we have this tendency to immediately dis
>the old cameras. But I ask the question: If it was good enough then, why
>is it not good enough now? After all, not all progress is progress.
You're right...
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Olympus claimed they improve the corner performance by reducing the angle
of
>incidence to the sensor (or even try to make it parallel), a parallel beam
>require rear element as larger as the sensor diameter but we didn't see
>that.
Just curious... which is the rear diameter of typical Four-Thirds lenses?
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|