Hi Andrew, Ken and all,
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>But for a unique listing, try this - 230435963362
Nice! The Pen-F lenses perform great on mFT bodies. Like M-mount lenses,
they're very compact (even including the adapter); but, unlike those RF
lenses, they focus very close!
And that 40/1.4 is a great lens -- IMHO better than the subsequent OM 50/1.4
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>We have found that some Zuikos which are exceptional on the OM bodies
aren't
>quite so hot on digital.
I agree. IME, the 24s are better than the 21s on film; on digital, quite the
opposite.
>The 200 F4 is a poor performer on
>film, but terrific on digital.
Ahem... The 200/4 is optically STUNNING on film -- as long as you tame
vibration. I think I haven't used it on digital... yet.
Add the 28/3.5 to the list of great performers on either medium.
<snip about the 35-80/2.8>
>It's as flare-hungry as I've ever seen in a
>lens
However, being a lens designed for a much wider field of view, maybe you're
getting into the "expected" frame some strong light not visible in the
cropped 4/3 finder. The "wasted" field of view may be reflected on whatever
item inside the mirror chamber... or even the adapter!
I remember taking a picture with a Russian Helios-44, a classic Biotar 58mm
F2 copy of excellent performance, but extremely sensitive to flare and with
poor (to put it mildly) coatings... it was the inside of a garage (the only
thing on the field) but taken from the outside. Needless to say, the white
wall around the garage gate _ruined_ the contrast of that shot.
>Digital? What's that?
LOL!
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/
|