On 2/7/06, Komtanoo Pinpimai <romerun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Oh you can get good photographs,
> > but it is quite a bit more work and never really superior to the DZ in
> > that range.
>
> In terms of contrast / vignette or ?
Somewhat with contrast, but more as a matter of color. Also white
balance is somewhat unpredictable from Zuiko to Zuiko. I've found the
more modern Zuikos (90/2, 35-80/2.8) are more like DZs in terms of
color, contrast, and WB predictability. Makes sense.
> Tamron 80-200mm has a better F than DZ 50-200, at least the brokeh
> should be superior. If we don't count the circuit communication
> between lense and E-body, will the DZ 50-200 produce better image(in
> your opinion) ?
The Tamron gets used right around f5.6 because of the behavior of the
meter. Look at it this way, if we couldn't chimp, the lens would be
nearly useless. The DZ is just much more useful, if only for allowing
you to think about the composition once again.
With the Tamron, f2.8 is somewhat poor to use with E-1 + adapter. The
DZ 50-200 is f2.8 part of the way before shifting to f3.5 at the long
end. I will get far more use from these stops on the DZ than on the
Tamron. There is lots of potential for bokeh at f3.5 depending on how
close you're focusing and the type of background. I have to test
this. With the DZ 14-54 I've gotten some beautiful bokeh and some
ugly bokeh. A good lens can't really make an ugly background look
good, even if it's ordinarily capable of good bokeh. Good bokeh seems
to be a function of both a lens with this quality and a qualifying
background.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|