Hi Moose,
I realize that my clean, single-glazed glass is still a handicap. I'm
willing to accept that at times in order to get a few images to continue
my processing education. We have had all-time record rainfall in Jan. &
Feb., and the ground outside is like a sponge, not good for shaky old
legs like mine. But, in spite of known handicaps, this grab shot was
braced on the window sill, at about 45 deg to the glass, and still
surprised me, and impressed me with the Oly 50-200.
http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/20190314-P3147889.JPG.html
My previous experience with the 200 Takumar was on Spotmatics and such,
and it was not outstanding, so I packed it away. When I came across it
last week, I had already found that the 135 Takumar worked fine on
digicams, so I decided to pull out the 200 and give it a try. I had
already ground down a 4/3 adapter to give me an accurate infinity stop,
which I need for my airport subjects. Shots like this one convinced me
that it, and the 200mm length, are quite useful at the airport.
http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/20190310-P3107729.JPG.html
There are still some things I have to work out. Shooting skydivers and
airplanes in flight against a blue sky with an AF lens is a challenge.
Using AF, the focus often takes off when it encounters blue sky, and
sometimes lingers there. Switching to MF, there is no stop, and the
adjustment is fairly coarse. Sometimes, the Takumar may just be the best
choice.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 3/15/2019 2:58 AM, Moose wrote:
On 3/14/2019 1:18 PM, Frank wrote:
Hmm... the SWD picture is unsharp and/or shaken, I don't think you can
conclude anything from that picture. Except that the lens is a lemon
if you
can't get it any better.
I noticed 1/100 for the SWD version and 1/320 & 1/500 for Takumar
versions
though (which I like btw). Could that explain the difference?
I think the key data is ". . . my tripod set behind clean window glass
. . ." double glazed, perhaps?
Even if you get it perfectly perpendicular to the glass, is has a big
effect on sharpness. I have occasionally shot through our single
glazing at birds on the feeder or fountain. I have always been
disappointed.
Comparing shots through window glass will never meaningfully show the
differences between lenses.
Jim, when you say you have seldom used this Takumar 200/4 lens,
because it tends to be softer than
you prefer, is that through glass? I think that the longer the FL, the
larger the degradation from shooting through window glass.
It's not difficult to design a good 200/4, if size and weight aren't a
problem. My pre-AI Nikkor-Q is a better lens on FF than my OM 200/4
and 200/5 lenses, center and edge. It's also a much older design and a
lot larger and heavier.
Look No Further 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/
|
