At 11:49 AM 4/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> >
> > I can't compare primes to primes, but I can compare the 14-54 ZD with my
> > 50/3.5. The quick report is that the 50/3.5 works great and I thought
> > surpassed the 14-54, though the zoom is certainly amazing in close
> quarters.
>
>Great comparison, thanks! The 14-54 probably isn't the best choice of lens
>to check resolution, I find it to be rather poor actually. It's not bad on
>the telephoto end, but the wide end is horribly soft. I've heard that the
>cheaper E-300 kit lens performs better!
>
>One thing your test did indrectly do is confirm the difference in colour
>balance I've seen between the ZD and OM lenses. I took your samples and
>added quite a bit of yellow and some magenta to the ZD shot. Here's the
>resulting comparision: http://olympus.dementia.org/E-1/ZDvsZ.jpg In this
>case I rather like the yellowish colour balance better, but in many other
>cases you really need to be aware of it when using the OM lenses.
> -mark
Thanks for that, Mark. The "look" of the 50/3.5 version is what I am used
to, but I was too lazy to do what you did. It is surprising to me that the
camera's WB algorthm doesn't render both exactly the same, since the only
peek it gets is through the glass. At least we know that there is a "glass
factor" in the color palette.
Ags and I had some offlist discussion about quasi-macro use of the
14-54. I had some initial shots at 54mm that rendered absolutely terrible
bokeh. Pulled back to about 35mm and closely focused the bokeh was
beautiful. The lens is a little mysterious. We've also experienced the
vignetting at the long end that was discussed a couple weeks ago. I still
find it to be a really nice lens and love its performance at the wide end.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
