Ok, here is the test with 5D2:
RAW converted with DPP sharpness: 1, ISO200, tripod, liveview, shutter 2
seconds delay, focus with liveview at F2 only.
Center focus
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/100F2_F2.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/100F2_F56.JPG
What surprise me was the corner softness does not reduce much at stopped
down.
Center focus
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90F2_F2.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90F2_F56.JPG
Top left corner focus, the edges look better with a very little trade off of
center sharpness.
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/100F2_2a.JPG
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/100F2_56a.JPG
At F2, 100/2 has better center sharpness but 90/2 has super edge to edge
performance even wide open, there is no surprise why the price is always
much higher than 100/2. I owned 3 100/2 at year 2000, tested them and found
not much difference then sold two best looking samples to list members. But
I would say I can never make such an accurate test without a 21mp FF digital
back.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling"
> As both Modern Photography and Gary's test results shown both lenses are
> very compariable. I doubt the extreme comments from these list memebers.
>
> My comment was based on the test shots under modern (digital back)
> controlled condition with very silent shutter and 10x liveview. As the
> difference between the two lenses are so small I doubt people will see it
> in normal use.
>
> Of course error can still happen and I will do it with 5D II FF soon.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Moose"
>
>> Dawid Loubser wrote:
>>>> Another list member showed me his 100/2 and noted that it was far
>>>> superior in general use to the 90.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi bill, in which ways? Are you talking handling, or optics?
>>
>> Walt Wayman wrote: Re: the wonderfull 100mm f2
>>> Yes, it is! I think it and the 50/2 are neck-and-neck for the best of
>>> the Zuikos, and that's saying a lot.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I'd give up the 35-80/2.8 or the 90/2 before I'd let go the 100/2. I
>>> feel pretty much the same way about the 135/4.5, too.
>>>
>>
>> Walt Wayman wrote: Re: When was the 90/2 Macro introduced?
>> > I agree. That's why I'm not missing mine. :-) I used it just a few
>> days ago for some Velvia shots of early crocus blooms. The 100/2 Zuiko
>> is sharper, and for most macro work, the 90/2.8 Tamron is just as good,
>> notwithstanding the Zuiko "magic," which doesn't always show up. But it
>> IS a Zuiko, and once a Zuiko gets here, it doesn't leave.*
>> >
>>
>> > From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> It is not about the sharpness. It's about the bokeh. The 90/2 is
>> the smoothest lens I have ever used. I miss it.
>> ========================================================
>> I believe he is talking about the one I bought from him.
>>
>>
>>> I have a hard time imagining superior in terms of optics, I really do.
>>>
>>
>> Open your mind. :-)
>>
>> Moose
>>
>> * It was a bit sad researching this. Walt left before his beloved Zuikos.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
