FWIW, in the EOS world, those who have bought the high end full size
sensor bodies have found that lesser lenses are humbled by the CCD and
that the better lenses really make a difference. From what I
understand, sales of 'L' primes are booming, particularly for the
135/2.0.
May be analagous to K25 years ago. When I used a Micro-Nikkor with it
and followed The Rules (tripod, mirror lock-up, precise focusing and
exposure, etc.) the results were superb. My 50/1.4 was simply not as
good with that film. The differences were less obvious with K64 and
the Ektachromes.
FWIW/ScottGee1
On Apr 1, 2005 3:25 PM, AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I also find myself wondering if your adapter is within
> > tolerance,
> > especially if the OM lenses provide "gorgeous results . . . on
> > Provia F".
>
> Makes me wonder if it's possible to have a lens TOO good for
> digital? However, the two example lenses (35-80, 90/2) are very
> fine lenses, but might not be good matches to the sensor. Many
> people have claimed that the 100/2 is a better lens than the
> 90/2.
>
> Temporarily AG-Schnozzless.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger
> Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
> http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|