On 6/24/2017 8:10 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
Tough call.
Well . . . Fudge!
After my last reply, I put the Oly on the camera and in the bag. This afternoon, there were a couple of shots I wanted
to take. I grabbed the camera, went out and shot, without even noticing which lens was on the body. So I guess my
carping about size and weight must be taken with a grain of salt.
Then I went over to look at a flowering plant that seems to have been put in the wrong place. That, in turn, took me
close to some flowers we quite like that have migrated from the yard across the street, first to help transform the
rather barren area between the front wall and street, then on into the yard. Soon, I imagine we will be pulling some in
inappropriate places out like weeds.
Anyway, I already knew that part of their special character that I like is the color of the flowers. It's one of those
colors in nature that just don't photograph accurately. But I was right there, so I went to take a shot.
Eeek! I've got the 12-100, and can't get much magnification without throwing the shadow of the honkin' great front of
the lens on the subject. Then there's a dahlia starting to bloom, and a cute bud, just starting to burst open, right
there. Same problem, but I take a shot.
Run in the house, change lenses, return to the scene of the crime. I get both shots the way I want them.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Lenses/12-60%20vs%2012-100/12-60v100.htm>
Yes, I believe Oly, that I could, theoretically, get the same size image as with the PLeica. And maybe if I take off the
lens hood, and maybe use a tripod to get close enough and hold the lens there, maybe some fill light, or a different
time of day . . . but I just couldn't get the shots, standing there with camera in hand and subjects ready. I believe
the shading of the front of the bud with the Oly is lens shadow.
Practical upshot is that the Oly doesn't do a kind of shooting that's important to me without fussing at least with an
auxiliary lens or tube. The PLeica just does it, no fuss, no bother, on to the next thing.
Irritated Moose
---------------------
I did mention the color of the flowers; wild difference, huh? The Oly shot is closer to correct, although not really
right and the PL quite a ways off what I see. There's an intensity to the dark color I have yet to capture. Between
shots, a cloud covered the sun, so the light changed, but you can see from the bud images that it didn't change most
colors much. The Panny and Oly lenses have different UV cutoffs. Perhaps there is a lot of invisible to me UV reflected?
The unique color a mix of two ends of the spectrum?
Puzzled Moose
In the big scheme of things bringing both is not that hard compared to FF
lenses.
Feh.
I would bet someone has tested the 12-60 on Oly bodies for the UV issue.
Perhaps MFT forum on FM if none hear has tested that.
I think you tested CU diopters on the 12-100 at 100mm but don't recall the
results.
When I was working the Mendocino Botanic Garden with two bodies, I had the T132 always at hand in a belt filter pouch
for the 100-400, anyway, and used it for the 12-100; worked fine.
Synch IS and handling on the E-M1 mk11 was excellent. The PL is tack sharp even
into the corners wide open at 12mm but is only F2.8 at 12mm as you know. One
can see a tad of onion skinning in the bokeh, but that is getting picky. The
PL 12-60 I think has 9 aperture blades and the Oly 12-100 7--the latter
doesn't do sunstars well and usually need at least F16. I don't know about the
PL but someone does. Ironically older lenses with straight aperture blades tend
to have nicer sunstars but I think that adversely affects the bokeh.
I don't get the sunstar thing; I don't want them, either kind.
No free lunch, Mike
I'm buying.
--
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/
|