I don't see much difference at all except that the 100mm shot has some
direct sun and therefore more contrast.
ps: This may be the first test shot from your apartment where the air
is clear enough that I can see a mountain in the background at upper
right. I never knew it was there. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 2/4/2012 10:40 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> I'm a bit relaxed as you say there were focus error, if one can see the
> difference with E-1's LCD then the lens is very bad, as the embeded JPEG is
> only 1280x960 pixel.
>
> Some time ago I did a comparison test on 90/2 and 100/2 with 5D II for
> distance object. 100/2 is slightly better at the center but 90/2 is very
> even across the field and better than 100/2 at the edges. I don't think 90/2
> will do poorer for close objects.
>
> 90/2 at F4 no sharpen
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_9566.JPG
>
> 100/2 at F4 no sharpen
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_9568.JPG
>
> Actually, I'm rather disappointed on my 100/2, the poor edge performance
> make the lens not good for landscapes.
>
> BTW, I don't have problem to focus the 85/2, 90/2 and 100/2 with 5D II.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Norton"<ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> So, here is question for the Olympus masses. If a lens is technically
>> as sharp as another, but in practical handheld photography isn't as
>> sharp, is it actually as sharp?
>>
>> Here is the scenario. The other night at the Iowa Zuikofest, we did
>> some ad-hoc lens testing. Joel with the 5D ghetto cam and me with the
>> E-1 lead sled. I was testing handheld. However, I was using
>> best-possible handheld techniques where I was anchored up against a
>> wall and tripodded my body. Techniques which usually yield me with
>> some pretty respectable results. Yet, the shutter speeds were low,
>> with the fastest being 1/100. Definitely way too slow for anything
>> other than entertainment. Yet, something strange happened.
>>
>> I shot with Joel's 90/2 and 85/2 as well as my 100/2 and 100/2.8. In
>> aperture-priority mode I shot at each aperture. Blurries kicked in
>> with a vengence past 1/15. No surprises there. I'm not perfect.
>>
>> But what has gotten me puzzled is that at all apertures both 100mm
>> lenses out performed the 85 and 90. And not by a small margin either.
>> Technically, these lenses should all be relatively close to each
>> other. So, here is what I'm thinking. As smooth as the E-1 is (and it
>> is extremely smooth), I might be getting some shutter vibration that
>> shows up at the shorter focal length lenses. Yet, something else I
>> noticed and even verbalized it when doing the testing. Both 100mm
>> lenses "snapped" into focus whereas the 90/2 and 85/2 weren't quite so
>> definite. Just maybe my focus is a bit off, but at that I should have
>> seen it show up elsewhere in the photo of the mustard bottle. Hmm.
>> Upon closer examination, the 90/2 and 85/2 MIGHT have been focused a
>> touch closer, but that just shows that I couldn't manually focus them
>> correctly.
>>
>> I'm wondering how Joel's tests with the 5D turned out.
>>
>> My subject distance was about 2 meters.
>>
>> I also was testing bokeh. Without a doubt, the 90/2 and 100/2 in
>> leagues of their own, but here is a quite perusal. These pictures had
>> chairs and tables of the dining area spread out to the distance with
>> some closer, some farther and some even farther away. I shot the
>> length of a dining room.
>>
>> 90/2. Wide-open is gorgeous. M
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
