Hello all
Looks as though I have to eat humble pie regarding my condemnation of the
DZ 14-45 lens on the E-1.
I was convinced that a Zuiko on the OMO4Ti would beat it hollow on the
same topic (Roses,
http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/photography/zuikoholics/recent5.htm )
but I have to admit that is possibly not the case. I took nearly a full roll
of
Fuji Reala 100 asa on those same blooms a couple of days later and I am
NOT happy with the results. I do acknowledge that the lighting conditions
were different. Overcast with nearly no direct light from the sun for the E-1
shots. Ideal.
There was a lot of direct sunlight for the OM shots and for some I shaded the
flowers with my hands.
I had thought the Zuiko 100/2 at F/8 would be sharp, but it did not provide the
depth of field, and I'm not too sure about the sharpness either. The leaf
detail
was bad, and with the direct lighting, the shiny leaves were all blown out.
I was especially disappointed with the Zuiko 35~105; it did not have the
normal close focus I thought it had, so I used the macro facility this lens
has. Not good for 6 x 8 prints.
However, I Do know the DZ 14-45 is not good for distant landscapes,
whereas the Zuiko 35~105 is tack sharp even at 12 x 18.
Buy the way, all prints made in the same lab, same Fuji machine.
The DZ lens had good detail and depth of field at f/9.
I guess it's a case of horses for courses; knowing even more aspects of my
gear matters more than ever now.
BTW, the 21/3.5 Zuiko with the impacted rear element now has to undergo
more testing. Shots of close subjects - a house wall - seemed OK, but
landscapes printed at 6 x 8 seem distinctly soft all over. I expected a lot
better.
Cheers, Brian
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|