Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Dude - Who stole my 0.56ms?

Subject: Re: [OM] Dude - Who stole my 0.56ms?
From: "Carlos J. Santisteban" <zuiko21@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 13:10:56 +0200
Hi Moose, Nicholas, C.H., Dawid and all,

From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>1. An early 50/1.8 that came with my first OM-1 around 1974. Not a very
>inspiring lens, which I pretty much abandoned when I got the 35-70/3.6,
>using it only for low light. I know Maitani was a genius, but he and his
>optical engineers were behind Nikon on that one. The 50/2 Nikkor on my
>previous Ftn was a much better lens.

That Nikkor is a really nice lens. I've got a beautifully AI'd H·C version.
And later versions of the OM 50/1.8 are highly regarded...

>Then again, soon the 37-70/3.6
>stomped the Nikkor 43-86 my dad had.

I got recently that classic OM zoom, and seems really sweet. OTOH, I've
heard not-so-good things about the 43-86 Nikkor.

>The 85/2 is very nice, but I'm not convinced it would make much real
>difference for most purposes to use the 100/2.8.

I see it this way: the 85 is basically the same size and weight, and
_almost_ the same focal length... but a _full_ stop faster.

>and I'm not convinced a 21/2 would give my much
>my 21/3.5 doesn't have.

Besides the outstanding combo of 92 degree-FoV and f/2 speed, I find it a
better performer than its slower brother, at least on film. With digital,
the 21/3.5 seems to improve a lot... but then I have little use for it, with
my 2x crop factor -- that's what the Panny 20/1.7 is for ;-)

From: Nicholas Herndon <nherndon@xxxxxxxxx>
>But objectively only the 28/2 could be said to be the best of the 28mm
>Zuikos (both lab tests and real world shooting confirm this.  Not that
>the other 28mm Zuikos are bad, but the 28/2 is just that good).

IME, the 28/2 was nice, and I had relative success with it on the EOS-300D:
<http://cjss.sytes.net/atachaos/razas/IMG_1584.JPG>

Mostly because I had no 'fast standard' for the DSLR... but when I went back
to film, it saw less and less use. Now it's broken :-( My current 'high
performance, high speed wide angle' is the 24/2. Yes, I know, it uses 55mm
filters... Otherwise, I love the 28/3.5, but it seems to have a lot of
sample variation.

>For portraiture, the 85/2 kicks a llama's @ss.

It does:
<http://cjss.sytes.net/atachaos/audrey85.jpeg> (F.Zuiko 85/2, Delta 100)

But also depends on the version. I've got three -- silvernosed F.Zuiko, MC
and a late 'just' Zuiko. I've compared them and with a (borrowed) 90/2...
for long distance, a quick review would be:

-the oldest is best for portraits, quite soft wide open but with even
performance all over the frame
-the MC is great for some types of astrophotography -- high contrast at the
espense of resolution
-the late one if the best for general purpose... but my sample focuses a tad
beyond infinity, which is very bad for astropics :-(

>The 100/2 is
>far superior to either, at least from what I've seen

Sounds interesting, I'd love to try one...

>I get the impression that both 24s
>and both 21s behave similarly, in that the slower lenses may be
>sharper,

IME, the 24/2 outperforms the already very good 24/2.8 at any aperture...
and the same happens with the 21/2, although doesn't seem as _exceedingly
sharp_ as the 24 -- at least on film.

>but the faster lenses are, well, faster,

Yes, and f/2 is a very interesting speed: most indoor situations result
about LV4 -- that's a relatively safe (for a wide) 1/15 @ F2 with a
reasonable 400 speed.

>and have the close
>focus correction that all of the faster Zuikos are rumored to have.

Except the (awful to me ;-) 35/2...

From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
>The 100/2 sounds like a great lens, but it doesn't focus very close,

But at 0.7m is still closer than the usual 10x focal length -- gives about
1:5 instead of the typical 1:8.

>The close focus mechanism in the 21/2 may give better flatness of field
>close-up.

Not sure about which aberrations are corrected by the mechanism. Some lenses
impair other aspects (spherical, chroma, distortion...) at close range.

>Somebody a few years ago posted some samples showing a great
>deal of field curvature in the 21/3.5 close-up. Doesn't matter to me. If
>for some strange reason I were to use it close in, it would be of a
>flower or some such, where OOF around the edges could be an advantage.

Sure. Many times wide-angles get closer in order to emphasize perspective,
thus field flatness may actually be a drawback.

>so the 50/2 may have eclipsed the 50/3.5 in many minds. I just don't see
>the point of a faster lens to be used stopped down for macro if it isn't
>better at sharpness, field flatness and vignetting.

Easier focusing?

>You [Dawid]
>use the 90/2 as a fast, normal distance, medium tele. I'd have thought
>the 85/2 would be better for that, but am happy you get so much pleasure
>from your 90/2.

In my (long distance) tests, the 90/2 beats any 85/2, even wide open is
nearly as good as the best Zuiko 85... at f/4!

>And I find the 50mm FL too short for outdoor macro.

Yes, and at 1:1 it will certainly block the light to the subject, it has to
be too close!

From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I'm not always need 1:2, I just like lenses that can focus closer, fast and
>with performance as good or even better than a normal lens.

That's a good point for macro lenses. I also like the (usually) faster
focusing throw. Also, being less "pushed" for speed _may_ lead to higher
correction degree, even with less elements -- e.g. 5 on the 50/3.5, which in
turn _may_ increase contrast and reduce flare/ghosting.

>The 50/2 and
>90/2 just fall into these requirements.

According to my recent testing, the 90/2 is a superb performer -- as a
general purpose tele. But IMHO ergonomics are awful!

>On the other hand I like the 50/3.5
>more, to my eyes it gives much better color/tone in the film age

I agree, mine is a late 'Zuiko' version -- marked '50mm 1:3,5'. The reduced
element count may be part of the reason.

>I mainly use the 85/2 for family portrait, I don't use it for macro but it
>is always a plus to be able to focus closer and with correction mechanism
to
>make sure the performance is maintained at close distance.

Some use it with extension tubes... however, that may reduce performance
because of the close-range correction system -- the distance scale (and thus
the applied correction) is no longer valid!

From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Did anybody say "focus stacking" ? There are, for me, two reasons to
>shoot digital:
>
>- Focus stacking for macro work

Nothing prevents doing it with film, then scanning -- less convenient and
more expensive, for sure, but possible.

>- Multi-exposure High-dynamic range (for when 14 stops of B&W film
>just ain't enough)

Hehe, it's funny how popular became HDR imaging with digital cameras -- it's
easy, but in a way _needs_ multiple exposure, thus unsuited for moving
sibjects. But with film, many times a bit of dodging/burning when printing
the negative would suffice... from a single take!

><http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/>

Interesting link, thanks for sharing. That technique gives poor results
today, but who knows what will get in the future!

Cheers,
-- 
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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