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?
I have owned both the 28/2 and the 35/2. I don't think the 35 is that
unsharp in comparison to the 28, but it does lack "snap". The chromes I shot
with both lenses on a single roll showed the 35 to produce flat lifeless
results, while the 28 was sharp and crisp, not unlike the faux Zeiss 28 when
I had the Contax G2 outfit (that outfit combined the best lenses I have ever
used with the worst autofocus in the history of photography). I understand
that the big thing with Zeill lenses is contrast, so than may say as much
about me as the lenses.
>> 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...
And I have no idea what organic means when applied to lenses, another one of
those squishy faux artsy terms that really doesn't explain anything.
Bill Pearce
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|