Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 90/2, zoom vs. prime and stuff [was Dude, who cares about .56ms

Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2, zoom vs. prime and stuff [was Dude, who cares about .56ms?]
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:46:21 +0800
90/2 peforms very well in 4/3 system, the bokeh is generally better than
with FF may be due to the working distance I usually do.

Here are two test shot at full resolution:

http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90mmF2.jpg

http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/90mmF4.jpg

Here are a few flower samples:

http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P3023210.jpg

http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P3023321.jpg

http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/P3023292.jpg

Ah! the last one was using liveview and shot at low angle.

C.H.Ling

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Hudson" <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> Is there any informed comment / experience out there in OM list land about
> combining a 90 / f2 with an E3 and what can be achieved image wise ?
>
> Does anyone have any images for view taken with a 90 / f2 and an E3 ?
>
> jh
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] 90/2, zoom vs. prime and stuff [was Dude,who cares about
> .56ms?]
>
>
>> Wow, that's really long... instead of trimming your message I provide my
>> views here:
>>
>> Concerning the price and performance - It is well known that for every
>> stop
>> of increase of aperture the price double, for original camera
>> manufacturer
>> lens the price increase another 30-100%, that's why OM 90/2 is so
>> expensive.
>> Also, it was the largest aperture 90-100mm macro in the world.
>>
>> I won't question your shooting style, everyone has their own. I mainly
>> used
>> the DZ 11-22 during a trip to Europe in 2004, it was a very hurry one
>> say...
>> 14 days for 8 countries :-) but I still changing lenses a lot. For the
>> local
>> shots, I usually shoot very slowly, there are penty of time to change
>> lens.
>> I'm not a pro, I don't need to make sure I can capture every important
>> scenes. Sometimes I just find the subject based on what lens I have
>> mounted
>> on the camera instead of finding the lens that fit the subject, you will
>> see
>> things differently that way. I know you do street snap of people with
>> long
>> lens/zoom but I usually just do it with a 24/2 prefocused.
>>
>> For the feeling of 50mm macro better for handhold, to me weight is
>> certainly
>> an issue. I know people say camera movement in macro will be the same if
>> image magnification is the same but I just found I get more sharp shots
>> with
>> short macro lens may be my next longer macros are just too heavy (90/2
>> and
>> 135/4.5 with autotube).
>>
>> C.H.Ling
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/10/2010 6:47 AM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Moose"<olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I was just sooo disappointed in the 90/2 that I had for close-up. Not
>>>>> awful, just so-so when I was expecting a lot.
>>>> You really expecting a lot from it, to me the close-up quality is good,
>>>> at least average for a 90mm macro. Here is a ~1:3 (?) shot at F2.8, not
>>>> bad to my eyes.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_5157.JPG (ISO 800, sharpness=1, NR=0)
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's very nice. I don't think mine was that sharp close-up. It's been
>>> a few years now, so it's hard to be sure. I don't care enough to go back
>>> looking for old images.
>>>
>>> I never carefully tested it against my other macro lenses. I had already
>>> sold it by the time I bought the Tamron 90/2.8 AF in Canon mount. I do
>>> remember doing a lot of close-up/macro work in nature at the time and
>>> finding that it just didn't measure up to the Tamron 90/2.5 or Kiron
>>> 105/2.8 on the same sort of subjects. Maybe in reality, it wasn't much
>>> worse, maybe even no worse (nah), but I paid a lot more money for this
>>> legendary lens, so it should be better, no?
>>>
>>> In careful 1:2 and 1:1 tests on a copy stand, the new Tamron on 5D
>>> clearly was better than anything I had but the 50/3.5 @ 1:2, where it
>>> was a tie, to my eye, although the two IQs were a little different from
>>> each other. I didn't have the 80/4 at that time, but it's really a
>>> different sort of lens, not suited to full range use from infinity to
>>> 1:2.
>>>
>>>> Its excellent corner to corner performance for distance object is
>>>> difficult to find among the OM Zuikos I have, great for demanding
>>>> landscape.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As you can see, I didn't limit myself to Zuikos. :-)   The truth is that
>>> I have mostly used zooms for landscapes since I got the 35-70/3.6 in the
>>> '70s, so over 30 years. I did for part of the time with the 35-70 have a
>>> Vivitar 28mm prime, but used it sparingly.  I believe all my 90-105 mm
>>> macros to be excellent at infinity, but have done no careful testing.
>>> The only time I think views like you have from high up in HK would be
>>> good is for non-close-up lens comparisons. I would have to go to
>>> considerable trouble to find such great lens test subjects where I live.
>>>
>>>>> My lens for family events for many years was the 35-70/3.6. I used it
>>>>> on
>>>>> a 2n, with OTF flash indoors or under trees, and was very happy.
>>>> The zoom is more versatile but you know fix lenses just feel much
>>>> better
>>>> and peoples are more respected to the image produce from fix lenses :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> We each need to know and work within our own limitations. Just as the
>>> camera left at home, no matter how wonderful, isn't as good as the one
>>> carried, the lens left in the bag isn't as good as the one on the
>>> camera. Very occasionally, I set out to photograph with a bag of prime
>>> lenses and a good tripod, work slowly and choose the lens for the shot.
>>>
>>> My personal experience is that doing that gets in the way of my
>>> photography. I get too involved in the equipment and don't find as
>>> appealing, to me, subjects and compositions. The majority of my images
>>> happen away from home while walking in nature, usually with one or more
>>> other people. But to tell the truth, even when by myself, I tend to see
>>> the shot, take it fairly quickly, and move on.
>>>
>>> This might be a problem if I were trying to make a living as a pro
>>> nature/landscape photographer. As an amateur, shooting mostly to please
>>> myself and to some extent those I know personally, it works. Because I
>>> notice and want to photograph everything from the tiny to the very wide
>>> to the very distant, often all within a few moments, I find zooms to be
>>> much more transparent to me. That is, they don't get in the way, while
>>> primes do.
>>>
>>> It may be a little like viewfinders. Obviously, lots of folks here find
>>> a great deal of difference in (D)SLR viewfinders. If I hold the "tunnel
>>> vision, dim, mirror prism" 300D in one hand and an OM-1 in the other, I
>>> can see that there is a huge difference in the view through them. but
>>> when I used the 300D in the field, I simply didn't notice. I looked
>>> through the finder and saw the subject. It was transparent to me, as I
>>> didn't notice it getting in the way. Primes aren't transparent to me.
>>>
>>> I know it makes me less than perfect ;-) , but I just don't much like
>>> changing lenses. Even with just 17-35, 28-300 and 90mm macro, I
>>> sometimes make do with 28 mm, when wider might be better, or use the
>>> nice close-up capability of the 28-300 at the long end, rather than
>>> switch to the true macro lens. When the wind is blowing, the spray is
>>> flying, and/or there is a lot more to see just down the trail, I just
>>> want to capture my image and move on.
>>>
>>> I suppose I'm odd. I'll stand in cold, damp wind, freezing while I wait
>>> for the perfect wave, for the bird to turn its head just right, for a
>>> nice bird to fly across the sunset, and so on, but resent having to
>>> shield the camera in my coat and unzip a bag to change lenses. Oh well.
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> I am also finding myself carrying a small camera, recently the G11, on
>>> my belt and using it for macro in many cases, rather than the 90/2.8 on
>>> 5D. Although pixel peeping IQ even at ISO 80 isn't up to the 5D, the
>>> greater DOF makes for better overall IQ for many flowers and similar
>>> subjects at reasonable viewing sizes.
>>>
>>> Although I pixel peep to compare sensor systems and lenses, which makes
>>> sense to me, I also take into consideration whether they would be
>>> practical in my use. The big, pro 1D series and Nikon equivalents or MF
>>> equipment may be the best there is, but I know I simply wouldn't be
>>> carrying them, so what good would they be for me?
>>>
>>> In practice, I and others mostly see my images on an 11.3x18.5" computer
>>> screen or an 8.5x11 print. Sure, I have the capability and the paper to
>>> print up to 13x19, but I almost never do. And even at 13x19, at normal
>>> viewing distances, the cameras and lenses I have are fully up to the
>>> job.
>>>
>>> Many of the images from my less than perfect zooms just knock me out at
>>> full computer screen size. I so much wish my distant friends could see
>>> them that way instead as the smaller sizes that are practical on the
>>> web.
>>>
>>> As long as Carol praises my images here at home and I get some positive
>>> feedback her and from other distant friends on my web images, I'm doing
>>> well.
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> The angle of view is like 100mm on FF, but the working distance is
>>>>> still
>>>>> short. I really like the working distance of the Tamron 90/2.5 with 2x
>>>>> converter. 180m is great and f5 stopped down a bit is fine for sunny
>>>>> days.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> More working distance is better but shorter lens is easier for
>>>> handhold.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is that really true? If the image size on screen or on paper is the
>>> same, aren't DOF and the effects of camera movement the same either way?
>>> I know we have the 1/focal length rule of thumb for shutter speed, but
>>> that's because image from the wider lens won't be enlarged to the same
>>> displayed subject size.
>>>
>>> If I take a picture of a ruler with 50 mm and with 180 mm and/or with
>>> 4/3 and FF and print them all so the ruler is the same size in the
>>> print, I think movement blur from my imperfection as a tripod is just
>>> the same in all of the prints.
>>>
>>> Or if you simply mean a smaller. lighter lens is easier to hold steady,
>>> I can see that. In practice, I find the mostly plastic, and therefore
>>> light, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro balances nicely on the 5D for me. I don't
>>> think a smaller, lighter lens would make any practical difference, but
>>> who knows?
>>>
>>> Moose
>>
>> -- 
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>> signature database 5026 (20100413) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 5029 (20100414) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz