That's one of the big differences between the digital age and film on this list
- we hardly speak about lenses.
Remember when threads about particular lenses and how they compare to other
lenses would go on hot and heavy for days -
or weeks?
An announcement of a new Zuiko macro lens would elicit a flurry of posts. Oly
announced the µ4/3 60/2.8, stating that it
is as good as the ZD 50/2. I don't recall it even being mentioned here. I only
became aware of it wandering about the web.
Anybody know about its unique hood?
I post an image from it, with 100% crop, and comparisons with other M.Z lenses,
and get one response (Thanks, Chuck!):
On 9/13/2013 5:04 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> All are very nice within their size domain.
That's it? That's all anyone has to say about a new(ish) lens?
I'm not complaining, just curious. Might it be that contemporary 4/3 and µ4/3
lenses have reached a point of sufficiency
such that differences don't matter much, to most of us, most of the time? Have
all our eyes grown so old that most of us
can't see the difference any more? :-(
AG is, of course, still singing the praises of certain OM lenses, Mike weighs
in with images form Bigfoot and its kin
and Moose mind bending erudite contributions on DOF, motion blur, etc.
And Joel had his recent Summer fling with a strange girl, the ZD 18-180, before
abandoning her.
But really not that much lens talk.
Just Sayin' 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/
|