Hi Moose,
You make some very valid observations. I don't have a good, solid
tripod, just an ancient Star-D. The shutter speeds were 1/25 and 1/34,
respectively, so yes, there could be some shake. I like to think that I
can hold a 50 at those speeds.
In each case, focus was on the eye, which is fairly easy to repeat.
Although I compared the images without it, I always look at any posted
images in FM, and usually add a level 1 or 2 correction before posting.
This seems to remove the EXIF data from my posts.
From a scientific viewpoint, this was far from perfect. But, now I
have a better idea of what to expect from each of these lenses, so I can
make a better choice for the planned images.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 12/16/2016 11:35 PM, Moose wrote:
On 12/16/2016 8:52 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
Glad you agree, Mike. But, sometimes I like to reduce the size and
weight.
My 50/3.5 Industar-50-2 lenses would make you happy in that sense.
Eensy and 2.4 oz. Another sleeper is the Canon AF 50/1.8. Seems to be
all cheap plastic, rattles if you shake it, but sharp, contrasty, low
distortion, low CA, etc.
I can't see any reason to pick one of these over the other, slightly
different, but not in ways that would make a winner and loser.
OTOH, neither stands out as particularly great. My initial responses
were "Nice duck.", not "Great images of a nice duck!" I've recently
been doing a lot of lens testing. Although I very seldom use a tripod
when not testing, I like to separate lens performance from any
limitations I may put on them through technique. So the tests are all
done on a heavy duty tripod and head, with remote release or self-timer.
With a 3D target, there's also the problem with fast lenses of
focusing in the same plane for each lens. I suspect there is a tiny
difference between the focal planes of these two shots. I started this
round of testing with a complex, 3D subject, and things got unclear.
With a flat target, differences in resolution and contrast are much
clearer.
What were the shutter speeds? Could there be a little motion blur? Is
there some way to get your editor to keep the EXIF data in its jpeg
output?
I find that the smaller ones can be made to be useful, in a pinch.
For the sizes you post, I imagine there is little noticeable
difference. I bet I could post shots with Panny 20/1.7 and Oly 25/1.7
at those sizes and no one, including me, would see a difference, even
though pixel peeping at test targets shows the Panny to be softer.
On 12/16/2016 9:58 PM, Mike Lazzari wrote:
I picked the Summicron-R as the winner, with the Canon a close second.
Not even close IMHO. Summicron-R going away. Just donate the rest to
charity :)
Resolute Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|