Same here, I found the late version Zuiko 35-105 is very contrasty, as
I have said before, I don't think all lenses are designed with maximum
contrast possible (under a limited cost), I think some are
intentionally design with reduced contrast. I even found the late
50/1.4 MC has lower contrast than the mid-age SC 50/1.4 (non backlight
condition).
A slightly different here, when I see the high contrast slides (my own
portrait) by the 35-105, I immediately sold it. I need a travel lens
that is good for both scenic and portrait as most of my travel shots
will include my wife and our sons (ok, they have less problem as they
are young :-)), so I prefer the 35-70/3.6.
C.H.Ling
"John A. Lind" wrote:
>
>
> I bought my 35-105/3.5~4.5 with some trepidation knowing it's a 3X zoom
> that has 16 elements in 12 groups. That's quite a lot of glass with many
> air-glass interfaces. Furthermore, it has greater complexity with
> "one-touch" focus and zoom, with a "close-focus" mechanism. When the first
> slides came back that were shot through it I was pleasantly shocked at
> their contrast. Although it doesn't quite have the resolving power of my
> 50/1.2, it comes very, very close, and its high contrast does compensate
> for that some.
>
> IMO, it is a marvelous zoom lens. I use it primarily as a "walk-around"
> lens for "editorial" type shooting that requires multiple focal lengths
> when using several primes is infeasible or impossible. Wish it were a
> constant aperture f/2.8, but I rarely use it indoors or under low light
> conditions outdoors.
>
> -- John
< 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 >
|