Yes. Assuming both lenses were correctly focused on the object and set to the
same aperture, excepting possible differences in resolution, which I doubt
would be significant, and color tint from varying coating formulations, and
perhaps a touch of chromatic aberration from the Zuiko, which the Rodenstock
doesn't have, they should be identical.
When it comes to the focal length of lenses, whatever the format might be that
they project an image onto, allow me to invoke an old Southern expression, most
crude in nature, substituting a blank for the noun, which you may fill in as
suits your sensibilities: "_________'s __________, even if it's on a cat."
Same thing for lenses. ;-)
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Piers Hemy" <piers@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Yes, I see that clearly.
>
> But typically we look at 10x8 prints. So produce a 10x8 from each. Would
> they each appear to be as 'in focus' as each other?
>
> I would try it myself, but the batteries on my Graflex are flat. Or
> something.
>
> --
> Piers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Walt Wayman
> Sent: 02 December 2004 16:33
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: Great E-1 150/2.0 pix on dpreview.com
>
> Exactly. Skip explains it quite correctly, but allow me an example:
>
> I have a 180mm Rodenstock lens I use fairly often with my 6x9cm Graflex
> XLRF. If I were to take a photograph of an object from a fixed point with
> it on the Graflex and the 180/2.8 Zuiko on an OM, assuming the same aperture
> is set on each lens, if I cropped a 24x36mm section from the center of the
> 6x9cm negative, it and the 35mm frame shot with the Zuiko would be, for all
> intents and purposes, identical.
>
> Walt
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|