On 1/22/2013 2:06 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Neo-Organic Moose (aren't meese vegetarians?) wrote:
> ...
>
>> The effect of the lens, beyond the effect of focal length on
>> perspective, has to be so minimal as to be visible only to those with very
>> special, imaginative vision.
> Ah, to the contrary! Even you talk about how nasty the bokeh is in
> some of the Zuiko lenses.
Sorry, so hard to detail everything. The only context I was writing about is
the one you specified, OM Zuiko 28/2 and 35/2.
I do indeed mention ugly, edgy bokeh, not just on Zuikos. I seem to be
bless/cursed with a particular tendency to notice
bokeh. And I've pretty much come to the conclusion that all regular lenses for
35 mm and smaller formats suffer from
mediocre to awful bokeh at at least some settings. Great, smooth, creamy bokeh
seems to be the province of some LF lenses.
>> I'm betting that with a subject where the perspective doesn't change,
>> neither you nor I could tell the
>> difference in a 'blind' viewing between Zuiko 28/2 and 35/2 at different
>> distances, such that image size
>> is the same in an 8x10 print, or even 12x16".
> Maybe, maybe not. At most "normal" working distances and apertures,
> the differences wouldn't mean a hoot. But focus on a subject 2 meters
> away and wide-open, I'm pretty sure that you'll see differences
> emerge.
So, we've moved from this strong, general statement,
"The 35/2 is likely the more "usable lens" being that it's my ideal
focal-length and generates a more organic image, but the 28/2 is the better
lens in pretty much every measurable way."
To "I'm pretty sure that you'll see differences emerge." under one specific
combination of focal distance and aperture.
> About my first comment about the 28/2 was the OOF highlights.
> They definitely do not have the same "organic" nature that other
> lenses can generate. Most certainly not as pleasant as the 35-80/2.8
> zoom.
OK, but what does that have to do with the 35/2?
> Which is something else that I mentioned a few days ago when Joel
> posted his September Zuikofest photos. The 35-80 shots have a very
> distinct signature that most people wouldn't notice unless they've
> spent significant time with that lens learning it's idiosyncrasies.
>
> The 28/2 is just like that. I'm getting image characteristics from
> this lens which I've never seen from any other of my Zuikos before.
> And it's not JUST at F2, either.
And I am happy for you, but, what about the 35/2 you talked about?
>> Both were designed at the same time, by the same people, with the same
>> materials and resources
>> available to them and the same vision of what results should look like.
> Then explain why the lenses are so different?
Show me how they are so different. You don't have a 35/2, I believe. Have you
ever compared the two lenses with the same
subject matter, film, processing, etc?
>> Sure, a Zeiss would look different, but more or less 'organic', especially
>> as defined above?
> But, why? Didn't you just talk about being able to identify...
No, see my first comment above.
>> But I may not have been wrong, if Andrew chooses to weigh in with his
>> definition. :-)
> Come on, give him a break. He's probably still sleeping.
Nope. :-)
Persistent Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|