on 4/7/02 6:40 PM, benson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx at
benson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> I'm only
>> commenting that your testing metholodogy leaves a lot to be desired.
>> When you do more testing, try slide film and a powerful loupe or modest
>> power microscope. Testing at maximum and minimum apertures doesn't say
>> much about the f5.6-11 range where most 35mm lenses perform best.
>
> Thanks Moose - your points, and suggested methodology, are well taken. I'm
> still
> somewhat curious, so I will give it a try...one of these days....in any case,
> I've probably got some distance to go before my artistry is severely
> constrained
> by the lens peformance of these particular lenses....
>
> Benson
I've read that many lenses perform best two to three stops down from maximum
aperture... this would be approximately the range of f5.6 to f11 for most
lenses. That also is a good range to use for faster shutter speeds, which
also helps sharpness.
Question -- if you are using say 400-speed film, outside, and wind up
needing 1/1000 and f16 or something like that, what is the speculation of
the learned list members regarding the addition of an ND filter (2x or 4x)
to improve the aperture versus the possible loss of resolution due to the
addition of the filter...?
I am presuming that adding *any* filter has some impact on the sharpness of
the lens, which is a first presumtion that may be open to challenge, but I
don't buy Leica filters... I actually don't use filters much at all.
What about a polarizer? I'd be more likely to add a polarizer if the light
were *really* bright and I wanted to filter it down some...
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|