From: Nicholas Herndon <nherndon@xxxxxxxxx>
>Agreed re: the 100/2 vs. the 85/2...but I do think it's sharper
>and the bokeh is better. Not by a lot, but it is noticeable.
>You couldn't be more wrong on the 35/2, however. What a nice lens
LOL LOL :-) :-) :-) Don't worry, there will always be controversy about this
lens... but just have a look at this test of three 35/2's wide open:
Centre:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/5511401239/>
"Corner"
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/5511999028/>
Left = Canon FDn
Middle = AF Nikkor
Right = Zuiko MC
Please note that this test was made on the GF1, so the "corners" are
actually half-way to the "real" corners on film...
On-axis, the Zuiko, albeit with low contrast and sharpness, keeps a very
good resolution -- I'd say a tad better than the all-round great performer
Canon. But half-corners are a different matter, the Zuiko looks just awful
-- must be even worse at the extreme corners :-(
>As for the 180/2.8, I've been wanting to try one...only thing stopping me
is
>the size.
'In person' looks smaller than I thought... it does handle very well, much
better than Nikon's offer in this category.
>The 200/4 is pretty small and a great performer, which makes it
>hard to justify the price of the 180/2.8.
The 200/4 is very good indeed... although the 200/5 has _half_ the lateral
colour of the f/4 (!) and despite lower contrast, is a tad sharper (after a
bit of processing).
But then, the 180 is a full stop faster than the 200/4, and almost two stops
from the 200/5...
No 180mm lens outperforms Leica's APO-Telyt f/3.4, though ;-) ;-)
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/
|