On 05 May 2010, at 1:10 PM, Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
>> For portraiture, the 85/2 kicks a llama's @ss.
>
> It does:
> <http://cjss.sytes.net/atachaos/audrey85.jpeg> (F.Zuiko 85/2, Delta
> 100)
>
> But also depends on the version. I've got three -- silvernosed
> F.Zuiko, MC
> and a late 'just' Zuiko. I've compared them and with a (borrowed)
> 90/2...
> for long distance, a quick review would be:
>
> -the oldest is best for portraits, quite soft wide open but with even
> performance all over the frame
> -the MC is great for some types of astrophotography -- high contrast
> at the
> espense of resolution
> -the late one if the best for general purpose... but my sample
> focuses a tad
> beyond infinity, which is very bad for astropics :-(
Hi Carlos,
I posted this informal portrait (I'm not really into formal portraits)
in another
message yesterday, but just to relate it to this thread: If one has,
and loves,
the 85/2.0 for portraits that's great, but in all the images I've
seen, it
doesn't offer near the subject isolation and "pop" that the 90/2.0
offers,
nor does it render out of focus backgrounds as "smoothly". I sometimes
get the
feeling that certain lenses render their out-of-focus areas with
different degrees
of contrast (regardless of smoothness / gaussian-ness of the circle of
confusion)
and the 90/2.0 seems to render it's in-focus area with string contrast
and "pop",
and somehow always renders even high-contrast backgrounds with very
low contrast.
I don't know enough about lens design to even know how possible /
differentiable
this may be, but if so, it may be the secret to the "look" of the
90/2.0.
Who knows... I just know that, bulk aside (the 85/2.0 is much prettier
and smaller)
the 90/2.0 remains perhaps my favourite lens ever: I am not in the
least tempted
by the 85/2.0 or 100/2.0.
http://tinyurl.com/36sx7y3
(OM-1n, 90/2.0 at 2.0, Ilford HP5, 5x7in hand print)
Again, I really suck at portraits, this was posted only for
technical purposes.
Carlos, I do think that I appreciate and enjoy the 24/2.0 as much as you
do, however. My copy generally has low contrast (it's a really ancient,
silvernosed "beater" that I got for $200), but the resolution is sure
there.
Mine has quite bad flare and coma in the outer zones at f/2.0 though,
but it's
got good character, and it's superb from f/4.0 onwards.
D.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
