On 2/25/2019 3:51 PM, Mike Gordon via olympus wrote:
<<<Did you notice the FL of that one? Yes, like some others, 400mm. F9--guessing single shot not stacked with no CU
diopter.
Yup. Single shot. No C-U needed for distance of 38'. :-)
Dr. Diffraction might have been upset but PP pulled it off.
Eh. People get the idea that diffraction is a cliff, off of which IQ falls to a horrible death. I've done some tests of
my own, and it ain't so. About this lens, saith Imaging-Resource:
"At 300mm and 400mm we begin to see results which are slightly less sharp: it's still very good, just not as tack sharp
as you'll see at 100mm. Diffraction limiting begins to set in at ƒ/11, but you won't notice any impact on sharpness
until ƒ/16."
I'm not sure I agree, but in any case, f9 isn't in a danger zone. I could claim I set that for DoF, as it was at a
distance and on a tilted rock face. But prior and later shots were also at f9, so either I unintentionally bumped it or
I set it for DoF on something else, and forgot to change it. I intend to shoot it at f7.1, which is a teensy bit sharper
than wide open f6.3
Deconvolution does wonders on these long FLs.
Un Diffracted 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/
|