Richard Lovison wrote:
> ..........
>
> 1 - Zuiko 35-70mm/4 .......... I know,
> I know... most list members think this is the worst of the 35-70mm zooms
> though I took many fine photos with it including the one that won 2nd
> place in a local calendar contest. So there <sticking out my tongue>.
>
That's not been my understanding, although I've never used one. Quality
order as I understand it is f3.6 is first, with the f4 and f3.5-4.5
pretty well tied for second, and the Cosina made f3.5-4.8 as the ugly
duckling.
Still, I wouldn't be surprised to see wonderful images from the 3.5-4.8
either. Most of the images we see are not displayed large enough for
resolution to be an issue. Many images we consider sharp turn out to
suffer from motion/vibration blur when viewed closely enough. Really,
the differences between many lenses aren't visible at common display sizes
On the other hand, many subjects don't particularly benefit from great
sharpness and others positively benefit from a lack of great sharpness.
It seems to me that really first rate lenses, sensors, film, etc. aren't
really necessary to get good images in many situations. But they mostly
won't hurt either, and will give the edge in other situations, so why
not have good stuff? On the other hand, it's not worth obsessing on the
differences between lenses, for example, that are all very close to each
other.
I've always been puzzled when someone posts a bunch of images shot with
the finest OM equipment the cheapest film they can find. To me, if the
shots are worth taking, they are worth good film.
While I'm at it, how about the comments on photo sharing sites about how
sharp a 400 pixel wide image is. :-)
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|