Last summer I did a short series (about half a roll of Provia 100F) of test
shots to compare the 90/2 Zuiko and the 90/2.8 Tamron macros. I couldn't tell
any real difference. Now, since the bokeh subject has reared its fuzzy head
again, and because the 90/2 Zuiko is said by many to have the most wonderful
bokeh, I'm putting up a couple of shots, one taken with each lens. About the
only things these lenses have in common is that they both have nine-blade
diaphragms.
These are straight scans, with no sharpening or other adjustments whatsoever,
of a deliberatly chosen "difficult" subject in fairly harsh lighting. For some
reason, although scanned at 2700 d.p.i. before being JPGed down to 800 pixels
wide, they look kinda "soft." I promise, though, that they are equally sharp
and have oodles of detail. But anyway, I'm doing this only for the bokeh, so
"soft" don't much matter.
If anybody can see any difference, I hope they'll 'splain it to me. I guess
I'm just not all that sensitive, because bokeh has never been that important to
me. Unless it's really bad and/or the subject is really boring, I usually
don't even notice it.
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724214.html
http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-724215.html
Walt, the bokeh clod
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|