Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Lens Test 85-250 f5 Zoon vs 85 f2

Subject: Re: [OM] Lens Test 85-250 f5 Zoon vs 85 f2
From: Clyde Soles <csoles@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 10:49:13 -0600
>Thanks for your comments.  One of the main reasons I took the time to write
>the post is.  I feel, for us serious hobbyist with our limited methods for
>making evaluations of one lens vs another is rather difficult at best.  Also,
>if we get several opinions, we will get as many conclusions.

Yep

>Are you saying that to see a difference in sharpness between 2 lenses, it
>would only show up on prints enlarged to 15 X 22 1/2 inches?
>In looking through loupe manufactures list, Peak & Schneider only list one
>loupe as high as 15X.  Most stop at 8X.  Are we talking microscopes here?

Well after you throw out all the poorly exposed, poorly framed, and
otherwise ruined shots (camera shake, etc...) you hopefully have a few
images left on the light table. Most of these are fine for casual work
(slide shows, web page, prints for friends) and will please most people.
But its the last nth of sharpness (and composition of course) that
separates the images that sell or win competitions. I don't find a 10x is
adequate to determine that final level of "tack sharp."

Peak makes a nice little 15x that sells for about $20. Use a *good* 4x
loupe for judging the image and stronger loupe for checking sharpness. Most
8x loupes are junk. You can't judge lens quality by looking through cheap
plastic.

>Agree again, I only used this method because several list members in the past
>have suggested this for evaluating.  You are limited to the lens on the
>projector as well as the screen.

It is a good method *if* you have a top-notch flat field projector lens
(Schneider or Ektapro Select -- they start at about $200) and use glass
mounts. But a high-quality loupe is a lot easier.

>How would we "Know" we are happy with a lens results if we have no way to
>"effectively" compare it to another lens.
>If one is striving to improve his technique, he/she will be limited by the
>equipment at some point.

Remember you can create great photos with a Diana camera which has the
cheapest lens ever made. It depends on the goal.

>Well, I do not compete with Pros.  But, I do view their work as a bench mark
>to which I strive to meet.  If the quality of the lens / equipment limits me
>and does not allow me to reach this level, I will not be satisfied with it.

Hate to say it but the laws of physics dictate you can't achieve pro level
without the right tools. There is no substitute for long, fast glass for
sports and nature. There is no 35mm that can compare with medium or large
format for landscape. OTOH it is hard to beat Olympus in the macro realm.

Given that, you need to accept the limitations of your system and make the
best with what you have. Your zoom is convenient for travel but the 85/2
will make far better portraits when shot wide open. Photography is the art
of compromise.

>So, What is the accepted, proper technique to compare one lens to another?

That's the stuff doctoral thesis', and flame fests, are made of ;-)
Sharpness is but one of many factors and the rest are extremely hard to
quantify.



< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz