On 31 Oct 2009, at 5:14 AM, Moose wrote:
>
> I am not impressed with the test. How can one conclude anything
> meaningful about overall performance from a tiny, low contrast subject
> in only the central portion of the frame? One could choose a lens,
> then
> find that it has horrible dropoff in sharpness and lots of CA once out
> of the center. No info at all about flare.
I certainly agree Moose, it's a terrible test, and appears to very
inconsistent
in terms of film grain, etc. I merely commented in anyway. The tiny
image from
Kelton Rhoads
(http://www.millennics.com/olympus/tope/tope_show_entry.php?pic=32&event=2
)
already says much more about what this lens can do at f/2.
> I know you
> are wild for shallow DOF, and the 250@ will certainly do that. Since I
> am generally looking for more DOF*, I would likely never have it wider
> open than maybe f4, and hope to be at f8 of 11. So the 300/4.5 is
> enough
> long Zuiko for me.
Yup, this is why the 250/2.0 intrigues me - shallow DOF + insane
sharpness in the
field. A certain look that would be very difficult to achieve
otherwise. This is why
I really would like to see images produced by others with the lens, to
see this character.
If you need more DOF, then the 200mm and 300mm zuikos, with their much
easier carrying,
make a lot more sense. The OM 300mm f/4.5 is certainly a very very
good lens, I must say
I don't use mine enough.
The focusing, for tracking any kind of moving target, is terrible on
the 300/4.5 though.
I wish they had brought out a later, internal focusing variant of one
of the small
200mm / 300mm lenses.
D.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|