Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Just for full disclosure: the Olympus pictures in this set are the last
> 3, i.e. the close-ups, all taken with the 100mm Apo Macro Elmarit, the
> most magnificent lens on earth (at least among those that ordinary
> people can buy).
>
Nice shots.
It seems to me that the feather has less than ideal tonal distribution.
Although it never quite reaches the top of the histogram, all the tonal
detail is bunched up near the top. Simply moving the end pointer down to
the highest value in the image and moving the center point to the
right makes a big difference, although I did a little more than that.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wajsman/Feather.htm
> As for the kit lens, my main issues with it are the distortion at 14mm
> and the slowness. I guess I am somewhat spoiled by the past 10 years so
> where I have shot mainly with prime lenses and fast zooms. I do realize
> that it is impossible to make a lens that is small and fast and cheap,
> so everything is a compromise.
Less disagreement than alternative viewpoints.
- I'm not all that interested in lens speed for a couple of reasons. One
is that I simply don't like big, heavy lenses, so I tend not to have
them with me out of the house, which severely limits their practical
performance. Second, DOF. I mostly shoot natural subjects, with many
tele and macro shots. So I am almost always looking for more, not less
DOF. So if the lens it going to be stopped down anyway, why do I need
the speed?
Just my opinion, I like all the E-410 shots, and especially #7. But I
think all three would benefit from a bit more DOF.
For me, one of the great benefits of the better DSLRs is that I can move
the speed from lens to sensor system, shooting at speeds I couldn't use
with film and get the result I want.
- The 14-42 is a kit lens. A review of such a lens, while providing
image quality data on an absolute scale, is primarily going to be about
where the lens stacks up with its competitors, not the "most magnificent
lens on earth". As the 14-42 has quite good image quality ratings and
really shines compared to most kit lenses in the area of sharpness, I
don't think a very positive conclusion is out of line. Also, re: Pop
Photo reviews; yes, they seldom really pan a lens, but no, they don't
universally praise them. I have even read summary phrases like "While
not very sharp and with limited ___, this lens will appeal to those on a
budget who are primarily interested in snapshots." Damning with faint
praise is not uncommon there.
The other positive, for me, is that its only significant optical quality
flaw is one of the easiest to fix in post. You can't really conjure up
detail that isn't captured, but you can easily correct linear distortion
(and vignetting), so those are the flaws that weigh least with me.
So, were I still a film shooter who doesn't go through a digital step, I
would agree that the lens is pretty flawed. As a DSLR shooter, it looks
like an amazing achievement of small size, light weight and low cost all
unexpectedly combined with excellent optical quality.
My Tamron 17-35 has some quite noticeable linear distortion. Yet finding
a lens with otherwise excellent IQ in that focal length range for FF is
exciting to me, especially at the size, weight and price, and PTLens
takes care of the distortion in a moment.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|