Paul Martinez wrote:
> I've found the Zuiko 28/2.8 to be the worst of the Zuiko 28's. I've tried
> them all on my FF Kodak SLR/c and found the /2 and /3.5 to be much better.
> Also, becuase many Zuiko's are old and out of adjustment, no solid
> conclusion should be made from a single sample. A good performing Zuiko 28/2
> will blow away any zoom lens on a FF DSLR in the corners, even at f/8.
>
> Other things also need to be considered, like the adapter you used and how
> you focused. The 28mm primes (including the Zeiss and Leica's) are very
> picky about what adapter you use on them. A poorly matched adapter will give
> poor results. It is often not as critical on a zoom lens at 28mm because
> they are much steeper retro-focus design at 28mm. For focus stopped down,
> leaning much more than you would think resonable to the infinity mark will
> give much better corner performance and DOF. Odd, but true.
Doesn't seem so odd to me. Non-macro lenses from the MF era will
generally have noticeable field curvature. And it becomes more of an
issue at closer focal distances. There were some sample images from a
21/3.5 posted here a few years ago that showed a great deal of it in the
21/3.5 used close-up.
This is just the thing addressed by the Minolta 24 mm VFC lens discussed
here in the last few days.
A practical solution is to use the matte area to check center and edge
focus of parts of the image that should be in focus and pick something
in between. That way, your DOF is used to best advantage.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|