Hi,
Well, the results are in!
I shall be brief about the 100/2, in fact I shall first describe it in one
word: superb!
Then to elborate on that: the pictures taken with the 100/2 at the "night
time event" were lovely, sharp, hardly any flare (if any at all), great
bokeh, and just the right "telephoto-impact". It is very likely that my TOPE
2 submission will be one of the shots taken with the 100/2 (although there
are also some good ones taken with the 28/2 too). The pictures I took in the
park last Monday were also no dissapointment, even in the "bokeh-killer"
situations (i.e. leaves with small specks of sky showing through, shot wide
open) the lens performed very, very well: the bokeh is not disturbing at all
!
So again, the tale of the 100/2's success has been retold, and it has rissen
yet another step higher (if possible) on my list of "first-to-pick-lenses",
but hey, it's already on the top of that list, so...
Anyway, I shall not overstate the obvious: I now consider the 100/2 to be my
standard lens; just the right amount of "telephoto impact", great bokeh,
excellent sharpness, excellent contrast and extremely well usable hand held
in low light conditions (with or without flash).
Good, this is stuff we already knew, so now on to the experiences with the
28/2.
So, just how did the 28/2 do?
Well, I must say I'm not unpleasantly surprised by the results. Lars Haven
has sent me a picture he took with his heavily-front-lens-damaged 28/2 in
which the sun shows a substantial amount of flare. Well, my findings are
rather similar. Several shots were taken wide open, and in some of the
others I stopped down to either f4, f5.6, f8 or f16, and I think at all
aperture settings some flare is visible. At times it's a bit hard to judge
what is flare and what is not, as the light sources were very much varied
(small point light sources, big broad lights, strobes, you name it). Either
way I used the 24/2.8 in some pics as comparison material (at f2.8) and I
have to say that that lens shows significantly less flaring than the 28/2
(at f2) in the same situation. I didn't go a long way to do a side by side
comparison between the two lenses, but I think I now know what to expect.
Also, I haven't yet gotten the roll of park pictures taken with the 28/2
(still in the camera), so no idea about the daytime performance and the
bokeh in the bokeh-killer-test...
Sharpness wise the 28/2 is lovely, and I can see absolutely _no_ image
degradation whatsoever in this respect. In terms of sharpness and contrast
in this night time situation it seems to be on a par with the 100/2 ! So, as
long as I don't have a replacement front element, I shall happily shoot
pictures with this lens and try to avoid typical flare situations.
I also took a shot to test for wave form and/or barrel distortion.
Unfortunately the composition of the comparison shot (100/2 @ f2) was rather
different from the one used for the 28/2 (also @ f2), so the majority of the
straight lines I was hoping to capture with the 100/2 too, are now rendered
nicely...out of focus ;) Either way, from what I can see so far (I have yet
to look at the pictures very carefully) there doesn't seem to be (too many)
distortion. The horizontal lines look pretty much straight. The vertical
ones do not look completely straight, so I shall take a closer look to see
whether it's just perspective distortion (caused by inclining the camera) or
whether it's lens distortion...
Finally a remark about the usability of the lens: lovely!
The 28/2 is a joy to use, it focuses easily (I used it on the 4Ti, equiped
with the 2-13 focusing screen), and some of the best shots I've gotten were
(wide open) hand-held, when I myself was in movement. I really can't give
away too much, or my contribution for TOPE 2 (which, for once, is not a
difficult/tricky set-up @ home) will directly be recognised...
Last remark regarding TOPE 2: well, I now have enough material for a
submission I'm happy with. It will be a bit difficult to choose between a
100/2 taken picture, or a 28/2 taken one (both in their own way show very
interesting perspective; very different, but both equally interesting). I'm
also breeding on something very complicated involving the bellows, but that
would only be used if it works out and/or if a lot of the other submissions
will be very similar to the ones I have in mind for now...
Cheers!
Olafo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Olaf Greve Lucent Technologies
Advanced Software Engineer Bell Labs (R&D Centre Twente)
ogreve@xxxxxxxxxx Capitool 5
Direct lines: +31-(0)53-4845706 7521 PL Enschede
+31-(0)35-6875706 The Netherlands
Personal e-mail: ogreve@xxxxxxxxxxx
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
< 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 >
|