In a message dated 98-07-02 21:54:30 EDT, Winsor wrote:
<< Since the opportunity presents itself, Greg, I would like to say that I
think your pictures on the Unofficial Olympus Web Photo Gallery are
absolutely stunning and allow you to talk about excellence in photography
and disciplined technique with some authority. I have gone back to look at
your images several times; I really like them.>>
Thank you very much, Winsor. I'm very glad you like them.
>> Since I am fond of the 24mm/F2.8 lens and with all the discussion about its
supposed terrible flare problem, I enjoyed, in addition to the beauty of
the pictures, seeing your examples with direct sun in the frame and no
horrible flare problems.>>
Hmm... I seemed to have missed the discussion on the flare problems with the
24mm 2.8. Clearly,
I have had no such problems. I consider the 24 2.8 to be a world-class wide
angle, both in terms of sharpness and contrast, and flare resistance. I have
enlarged the Harriman State Park photo to 20x24 and the resolution of that
image is stunning. Looks like a medium format image.
>>Several of your photos were taken according to your notes with the 50-250
and looked great in the gallery. You evidently like that lens. Do the
images also hold up well to enlargement? Do you think it is the best of the
long zooms made by Oly or do you like it primarily for the usefulness of
the focal range?>>
I do like that lens, and for comparison, I have the 65-200/4 and a 70-210
Vivitar Series 1 and I
feel that it is slightly sharper than both, at about 180mm, f11. Contrast is
hard to measure but it is not quite as good as my Tamron 180 ED-IF, which is a
tough act to follow for any lens. I think the older 85-250 could give it a
run for its money based on its test results, and I intend to acquire one in
the near future to check. I don't think anyone in the free world has
published a test on the 50-250, however, Tokina made a 50-250 that looked and
operated in a remarkably similar fashion and it tested out quite well. I
would assume only better from the Zuiko. The only caveat is that when using
the 50-250 on a tripod, you >must< use the mirror pre-fire function to
eliminate mirror vibration that is amplified by the long, unsupported length
of the lens. I also use a supplemental rubber lens hood when using the lens
in bright sun at longer focal lengths. It does have a built-in sliding hood
but it doesn't have much coverage since is has to allow for a wide 50mm view.
I have enlarged images to 13x20 taken with this lens and they have been quite
good, but I won't go any larger.
I do also like the range of that lens. I often find myself out past 200mm fo
tight compositions and vignettes. For this reason, my most-hoped-for zuiko
lens is a 100-300. I could unload both the 50-250 and my 300 from my bag.
One other note, while I'm on the subject of the gallery shots. I chose
several of them for the specific reason to showcase the unique low-light
capabilities of OM cameras. For example, the Harriman Park shot and the Bear
Mountain Bridge shot were both very long exposures (nearly one minute). The
outrageous thing is that I just dialed in a little exposure comp and fired
away on auto! I don't think you can do that with any autofocus wonder-brick
available today. Another case in point is the slot canyon shot. Our
workshop leader was bouncing from student to student giving them spot meter
readings while they were timing their "bulb" exposures with stop watches. I
was nearly laughing to myself as I did my own spot metering and once again,
fired away on auto. Big fun these OM's of ours.
Regards,
Greg Logiodice
Nyack, NY
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|