> Interesting set of observations. Would have guessed the 200/4 would not do
> so well on any FF but what is up with the 50/1.4?
It's not that the 200/4 is BAD on the 6D, but it just struggles a
little bit at the pixel-level. It just lacks the pixel-detail snap
that the other lenses can have. not sure what is up, but as I think
about this, there might be an issue with the old single-coated lens
design and an abnormal transparency to UV/IR which could be causing
smearing with the filter stack. Who knows.
> Seems quite good on the 5D(c,II,III).
The 50/1.4 is a bit odd. It gets very artsy wide-open on the 6D, but
is otherwise perfectly find when stopped down. I haven't spent any
time comparing to the 50/1.8, but should do that this week.
While I understand the whole crop-sensor vs. full-frame sensor thing
when it comes to the image corners, the difference between these
lenses and sensors is apparent at center. The three 4/3 cameras I have
do render things differently between some lenses, the difference
between them and the 6D are quite noticable.
Then there is the intangible aspects and some of the lenses on the 6D
are just wonderful in how they render the scene (no technical issues
involved) where others are boring.
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|