Hi Rob:
> I'm curious how
> you feel about the 21/3.5 you tested? I'd like to have seen you
editorialize
> a little.
I try and keep that to a minimum, although I did call this a "sleeper." I've
examined the slides under 30X and 100X magnification and the 21mm f/3.5 is
just as sharp as the projected SQF ratings I posted. I have yet to use it
enough to comment much on "field use." But you missed my posting where I
looked through it perched a top a seaside cliff and instantly got a case of
vertigo. Use with caution in precarious places.
I am digitally printing for the holidays lots of my old shots of family. I'm
really lamenting having relied on some budget Zuikos for so many years and not
capturing shots with as good of lenses as was possible. But some of it might
have been the films used and that family shots are often the ones without
getting out the tripod. Plus one's technique does improve with age. I
certainly have been reflecting on my evolution of technique. It is a good
exercise now and then, least one revert to "press and pray" automation. It
sure took me a long time to understand how important lighting is.
Back to printing subdued light childbirth pictures taken in 1983 with 3M
Scotch 640T. Talk about grain.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|