CH ......... thanks for these images. The 90mmF4 image looks just a trifle
sharper on screen than does the F2 image but not by much at all. Would an F8
image be any improvement over the F4 one ?
jh
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2, zoom vs. prime and stuff [was Dude,who cares about
.56ms?]
> 90/2 peforms very well in 4/3 system, the bokeh is generally better than
> with FF may be due to the working distance I usually do.
>
> Here are two test shot at full resolution:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90mmF2.jpg
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90mmF4.jpg
>
> Here are a few flower samples:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P3023210.jpg
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P3023321.jpg
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P3023292.jpg
>
> Ah! the last one was using liveview and shot at low angle.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Hudson" <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Is there any informed comment / experience out there in OM list land
>> about
>> combining a 90 / f2 with an E3 and what can be achieved image wise ?
>>
>> Does anyone have any images for view taken with a 90 / f2 and an E3 ?
>>
>> jh
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:20 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2, zoom vs. prime and stuff [was Dude,who cares
>> about
>> .56ms?]
>>
>>
>>> Wow, that's really long... instead of trimming your message I provide my
>>> views here:
>>>
>>> Concerning the price and performance - It is well known that for every
>>> stop
>>> of increase of aperture the price double, for original camera
>>> manufacturer
>>> lens the price increase another 30-100%, that's why OM 90/2 is so
>>> expensive.
>>> Also, it was the largest aperture 90-100mm macro in the world.
>>>
>>> I won't question your shooting style, everyone has their own. I mainly
>>> used
>>> the DZ 11-22 during a trip to Europe in 2004, it was a very hurry one
>>> say...
>>> 14 days for 8 countries :-) but I still changing lenses a lot. For the
>>> local
>>> shots, I usually shoot very slowly, there are penty of time to change
>>> lens.
>>> I'm not a pro, I don't need to make sure I can capture every important
>>> scenes. Sometimes I just find the subject based on what lens I have
>>> mounted
>>> on the camera instead of finding the lens that fit the subject, you will
>>> see
>>> things differently that way. I know you do street snap of people with
>>> long
>>> lens/zoom but I usually just do it with a 24/2 prefocused.
>>>
>>> For the feeling of 50mm macro better for handhold, to me weight is
>>> certainly
>>> an issue. I know people say camera movement in macro will be the same if
>>> image magnification is the same but I just found I get more sharp shots
>>> with
>>> short macro lens may be my next longer macros are just too heavy (90/2
>>> and
>>> 135/4.5 with autotube).
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 4/10/2010 6:47 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Moose"<olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was just sooo disappointed in the 90/2 that I had for close-up. Not
>>>>>> awful, just so-so when I was expecting a lot.
>>>>> You really expecting a lot from it, to me the close-up quality is
>>>>> good,
>>>>> at least average for a 90mm macro. Here is a ~1:3 (?) shot at F2.8,
>>>>> not
>>>>> bad to my eyes.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5157.JPG (ISO 800, sharpness=1,
>>>>> NR=0)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's very nice. I don't think mine was that sharp close-up. It's been
>>>> a few years now, so it's hard to be sure. I don't care enough to go
>>>> back
>>>> looking for old images.
>>>>
>>>> I never carefully tested it against my other macro lenses. I had
>>>> already
>>>> sold it by the time I bought the Tamron 90/2.8 AF in Canon mount. I do
>>>> remember doing a lot of close-up/macro work in nature at the time and
>>>> finding that it just didn't measure up to the Tamron 90/2.5 or Kiron
>>>> 105/2.8 on the same sort of subjects. Maybe in reality, it wasn't much
>>>> worse, maybe even no worse (nah), but I paid a lot more money for this
>>>> legendary lens, so it should be better, no?
>>>>
>>>> In careful 1:2 and 1:1 tests on a copy stand, the new Tamron on 5D
>>>> clearly was better than anything I had but the 50/3.5 @ 1:2, where it
>>>> was a tie, to my eye, although the two IQs were a little different from
>>>> each other. I didn't have the 80/4 at that time, but it's really a
>>>> different sort of lens, not suited to full range use from infinity to
>>>> 1:2.
>>>>
>>>>> Its excellent corner to corner performance for distance object is
>>>>> difficult to find among the OM Zuikos I have, great for demanding
>>>>> landscape.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you can see, I didn't limit myself to Zuikos. :-) The truth is
>>>> that
>>>> I have mostly used zooms for landscapes since I got the 35-70/3.6 in
>>>> the
>>>> '70s, so over 30 years. I did for part of the time with the 35-70 have
>>>> a
>>>> Vivitar 28mm prime, but used it sparingly. I believe all my 90-105 mm
>>>> macros to be excellent at infinity, but have done no careful testing.
>>>> The only time I think views like you have from high up in HK would be
>>>> good is for non-close-up lens comparisons. I would have to go to
>>>> considerable trouble to find such great lens test subjects where I
>>>> live.
>>>>
>>>>>> My lens for family events for many years was the 35-70/3.6. I used it
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> a 2n, with OTF flash indoors or under trees, and was very happy.
>>>>> The zoom is more versatile but you know fix lenses just feel much
>>>>> better
>>>>> and peoples are more respected to the image produce from fix lenses
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We each need to know and work within our own limitations. Just as the
>>>> camera left at home, no matter how wonderful, isn't as good as the one
>>>> carried, the lens left in the bag isn't as good as the one on the
>>>> camera. Very occasionally, I set out to photograph with a bag of prime
>>>> lenses and a good tripod, work slowly and choose the lens for the shot.
>>>>
>>>> My personal experience is that doing that gets in the way of my
>>>> photography. I get too involved in the equipment and don't find as
>>>> appealing, to me, subjects and compositions. The majority of my images
>>>> happen away from home while walking in nature, usually with one or more
>>>> other people. But to tell the truth, even when by myself, I tend to see
>>>> the shot, take it fairly quickly, and move on.
>>>>
>>>> This might be a problem if I were trying to make a living as a pro
>>>> nature/landscape photographer. As an amateur, shooting mostly to please
>>>> myself and to some extent those I know personally, it works. Because I
>>>> notice and want to photograph everything from the tiny to the very wide
>>>> to the very distant, often all within a few moments, I find zooms to be
>>>> much more transparent to me. That is, they don't get in the way, while
>>>> primes do.
>>>>
>>>> It may be a little like viewfinders. Obviously, lots of folks here find
>>>> a great deal of difference in (D)SLR viewfinders. If I hold the "tunnel
>>>> vision, dim, mirror prism" 300D in one hand and an OM-1 in the other, I
>>>> can see that there is a huge difference in the view through them. but
>>>> when I used the 300D in the field, I simply didn't notice. I looked
>>>> through the finder and saw the subject. It was transparent to me, as I
>>>> didn't notice it getting in the way. Primes aren't transparent to me.
>>>>
>>>> I know it makes me less than perfect ;-) , but I just don't much like
>>>> changing lenses. Even with just 17-35, 28-300 and 90mm macro, I
>>>> sometimes make do with 28 mm, when wider might be better, or use the
>>>> nice close-up capability of the 28-300 at the long end, rather than
>>>> switch to the true macro lens. When the wind is blowing, the spray is
>>>> flying, and/or there is a lot more to see just down the trail, I just
>>>> want to capture my image and move on.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose I'm odd. I'll stand in cold, damp wind, freezing while I wait
>>>> for the perfect wave, for the bird to turn its head just right, for a
>>>> nice bird to fly across the sunset, and so on, but resent having to
>>>> shield the camera in my coat and unzip a bag to change lenses. Oh well.
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>>> I am also finding myself carrying a small camera, recently the G11, on
>>>> my belt and using it for macro in many cases, rather than the 90/2.8 on
>>>> 5D. Although pixel peeping IQ even at ISO 80 isn't up to the 5D, the
>>>> greater DOF makes for better overall IQ for many flowers and similar
>>>> subjects at reasonable viewing sizes.
>>>>
>>>> Although I pixel peep to compare sensor systems and lenses, which makes
>>>> sense to me, I also take into consideration whether they would be
>>>> practical in my use. The big, pro 1D series and Nikon equivalents or MF
>>>> equipment may be the best there is, but I know I simply wouldn't be
>>>> carrying them, so what good would they be for me?
>>>>
>>>> In practice, I and others mostly see my images on an 11.3x18.5"
>>>> computer
>>>> screen or an 8.5x11 print. Sure, I have the capability and the paper to
>>>> print up to 13x19, but I almost never do. And even at 13x19, at normal
>>>> viewing distances, the cameras and lenses I have are fully up to the
>>>> job.
>>>>
>>>> Many of the images from my less than perfect zooms just knock me out at
>>>> full computer screen size. I so much wish my distant friends could see
>>>> them that way instead as the smaller sizes that are practical on the
>>>> web.
>>>>
>>>> As long as Carol praises my images here at home and I get some positive
>>>> feedback her and from other distant friends on my web images, I'm doing
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> The angle of view is like 100mm on FF, but the working distance is
>>>>>> still
>>>>>> short. I really like the working distance of the Tamron 90/2.5 with
>>>>>> 2x
>>>>>> converter. 180m is great and f5 stopped down a bit is fine for sunny
>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> More working distance is better but shorter lens is easier for
>>>>> handhold.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is that really true? If the image size on screen or on paper is the
>>>> same, aren't DOF and the effects of camera movement the same either
>>>> way?
>>>> I know we have the 1/focal length rule of thumb for shutter speed, but
>>>> that's because image from the wider lens won't be enlarged to the same
>>>> displayed subject size.
>>>>
>>>> If I take a picture of a ruler with 50 mm and with 180 mm and/or with
>>>> 4/3 and FF and print them all so the ruler is the same size in the
>>>> print, I think movement blur from my imperfection as a tripod is just
>>>> the same in all of the prints.
>>>>
>>>> Or if you simply mean a smaller. lighter lens is easier to hold steady,
>>>> I can see that. In practice, I find the mostly plastic, and therefore
>>>> light, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro balances nicely on the 5D for me. I don't
>>>> think a smaller, lighter lens would make any practical difference, but
>>>> who knows?
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>> signature database 5026 (20100413) __________
>>>
>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>>
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 5029 (20100414) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 5030 (20100415) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5030 (20100415) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
