On 4/9/2010 7:33 AM, Nicholas Herndon wrote:
>> I'm not sure I'm sold. Look at the recent threads on the 24, 28& 35 mm OM
>> lenses. Not everybody here is convinced that the F2s are better.
>>
> I dunno Moose, I'm pretty convinced.
> Having had both the slower and faster versions of all three of those lenses,
> I will say unequivocally that I prefer the faster versions. But objectively
> only the 28/2 could be said to be the best of the 28mm Zuikos (both lab tests
> and real world shooting confirm this. Not that the other 28mm Zuikos are
> bad, but the 28/2 is just that good).
>
Again, I am not arguing from personal experience, but from years of
reading posts here and squirreling many about OM lenses away for
reference. There have been those on both sides of the fence for all
three lenses. Personally, I've had the 24/f2.8, 28/2 and 35/2.8 for some
time, but not the alternate versions for any sort of comparison until
one very recently.
>> I've not compared them myself, but I'm convinced that a 50/2 wouldn't
>> outperform my 50/3.5s for copy work
>>
>> The 50/3.5 is unparalleled for copy work. I love it on digital for product
>> shots; it gives an extremely flat field and ZERO distortion. But what about
>> other macro work? (I have no experience with the 50/2
>> so I can't say).
>>
I've tried the 50/3.5 as a field lens, but don't particularly like the
results. For close-up/macro, the working distance, a plus on the copy
stand, is often too short for comfort, particularly for little critters.
The bokeh in close-up use with relatively distant background is awful.
As I also have the 135/4.5 macro, Kiron 105/2.5 that focuses directly to
1:1 and Tammy 90/2.5 macro with 2x converter to 180/5 that also focuses
directly to 1:1, after a brief fling, the 50/3.5s retreated to the
indoors again.
>> The 85/2 is very nice, but I'm not convinced it would make much real
>> difference for most purposes to use the 100/2.8.
>>
> For portraiture, the 85/2 kicks a llama's @ss. The 100/2.8 has (in my
> opinion) terrible out of focus area rendering (or bokeh, if you will).
>
I've never done any portraiture to speak of. If I ever take it up, I
have an 85/2 to hand. In the mostly outdoor, mostly landscape use to
which I've put it, the 100/2.8 has fine bokeh (A goofy word, perhaps,
but it saves typing.) Bokeh is very much a function of subject and
background distances, both relative and absolute.
> I have a feeling the 100/2.8 might be a hair sharper. The 100/2 is far
> superior to either, at least from what I've seen (I haven't used it, only the
> 85/2 and 100/2.8).
>
The 100/2 sounds like a great lens, but it doesn't focus very close,
which is a significant limitation to me. Add size/weight, cost and the
primacy of digital shooting in my life now, and I can't see the point.
That's why I tried a 90/2, but that' a subject for a different reply.
>
>> The 18/3.5 is wonderful
>>
> I don't think there is a fast alternative to that lens, in the Zuiko lineup.
>
Nope, but my reply overall was to Ag's comments about thoughts of great
OMZ lenses going naturally to f2 lenses. I only mentioned the 18/3.5 as
one of a handful of what I consider the best of the OMZs, but that
aren't f2.
>
>> and I'm not convinced a 21/2 would give my much my 21/3.5 doesn't have.
>>
> I only have the 21/3.5, but there are times when I wish I had the 1.5 stop
> faster version. That said, I get the impression that both 24s and both 21s
> behave similarly, in that the slower lenses may be sharper, but the faster
> lenses are, well, faster, and have the close focus correction that all of the
> faster Zuikos are rumored to have.
>
The close focus mechanism in the 21/2 may give better flatness of field
close-up. Somebody a few years ago posted some samples showing a great
deal of field curvature in the 21/3.5 close-up. Doesn't matter to me. If
for some strange reason I were to use it close in, it would be of a
flower or some such, where OOF around the edges could be an advantage.
>> If asked to name the best OM lenses, I'd have included the last 50/1.4.
>>
> Agreed. And Ken, sorry, but I don't think you could refer to the last 50/1.4
> as a sleeper by any definition of the word. I think it's pretty common
> knowledge that the later 50/1.4s are great lenses, and as such are highly
> sought after by users (OM and digital alike). If you ask me, the 50/3.5
> macro...now THERE is a sleeper. That is one lens that does not disappoint.
>
Perhaps so. There's this guy thing about wanting biggest, fastest, etc.,
so the 50/2 may have eclipsed the 50/3.5 in many minds. I just don't see
the point of a faster lens to be used stopped down for macro if it isn't
better at sharpness, field flatness and vignetting.
Even it's optimum aperture may not be an advantage. Optimum for the f3/5
is f8-11, in my experience of copy use. If that of the f2.0 is f4-5.6,
that would actually be a disadvantage with less than flat subjects,
where I want maximum DOF at optimum aperture. I and a professor friend
have done a lot of copying of art and archaeology books images for his
lectures. They won't fit and/or can't be opened flat for the scanner
without damage. Even on the copy stand, it's impossible to get all of
them really flat. The 50/3.5 and Tammy 90/2.5 for the smaller images,
ahve the DOf for the job.
ObstrepteraMoose
Personally, I've never seen a direct comparison in that use. Sure, it
may work well at infinity, too, but that's where the 50/1.4 excels.
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/
|