> Interesting. Both Carol's and my glasses turn dark throughout the plastic
> lens.
I am guessing this is a new cost saving idea, while I was in the UK
recently I got my eyes tested again by a "proper" optician, and
consequently now have a pair of varifocals (the latest technology fro
seiko), one normal for distance and a pair of reading glasses. These
tint normally i.e. throughout the glass, and optically are much better
than the pair I bought in switzerland. (there the opticions just test
for eye strength using a machine and not also for eye health which
requires a visit to the eye doctor.
> I documented years ago that manual lenses with adapters have exposure errors
> with Canon metering systems.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/300D/300Dexp.jpg>
>
> I doubt if the specific response of the old 300D is indicative of the 5DII,
> but I'll bet the metering response to MF
> lens apertures is still non-linear, perhaps requiring different compensation
> at different apertures.
>
> In the case at hand, -4/3 EV would normally be enough to reduce the blown
> highlights to a very small area. As it's the
> setting for the last three shots, I assume it is dialed in to get normal
> exposure with the MF lens used?
Yes I found that I had to add a lot of compensation, but it was the
variance that made things annoying, especially when I have yet to work
out the pattern and that's where I thought the glasses may be at fault,
because using live view I got more consistent results.
> Wishfully wide thinking? Isn't it a 14-24/2.8 lens?
Yes sorry I made that mistake last time I mentioned that lens. while the
caynon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is good from tests it's not as good as the
nykon, although I see that tokina is releasing a 16-28 F2.8 based on the
nykon design so maybe I wait for some tests on that.
> I started out using OM lenses with an adapter. For me, too slow, too
> complicated (including exposure issues), too much
> time taken and too many missed shots. I only use MF lenses very occasionally
> now. I'd be picking up the Canon 16-35mm
> f/2.8 L II , rather than that Nikkor. The Mk II version gets very good
> reviews. Of course, I actually use a slower,
> cheaper Tamron 17-35 - happily.
>
>
I have to say it is a pain but I am not fully ready to switch over to
the dark side and when it works the images from the 35-80/2.8 and 24/2.8
on the 5D2 are really nice, the canyon 70-200/4 (non IS) I have also
meets my expectations.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
