>
> I assume the 14-50 you speak of is the Panasonic 14-50mm f/3.8-5.6
> Vario-Elmar.
No, I have the original big momma. It's F2.8 to F3.5 wide-open. F2.8 vs F3.5
at 50mm is different, for sure, but the difference is slight.
> Furthermore, you are trying to defend four thirds against 35mm using a four
> thirds vs four thirds test in addition to incomparable lenses. Doesn't make
> sense.
>
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.
I believe that the essence of my point is this: If a person wants to get
around the inherent limitations of the crop-format camera, there are ways to
accomplish this and it alone is not reason enough to crucify the format.
The optical design of a modern zoom is a thing to behold. It's amazing how
good in almost every way they've been able to make a zoom lens perform at
the limits of technical perfection. But this technical perfection in a
highly-corrected lens results in a different way of seeing. If all a person
had was a couple zooms, he or she would have the focal-lengths covered with
a lens capable of sharp, even pictures, but that also might come with a
lens, such as the 14-50, that has very hard limits on how spread the OOF
rays become. A double-Gauss lens, on the other hand, has inherent technical
flaws, but does allow for a greater spread of the OOF rays. Technically, the
DoF may calculate out about the same, but by controlling the maximum spread
of the rays the resulting images will have more or less blurred effect. In
some cases the maximum spread is reached and the rays start folding back in
on themselves causing rings, donuts and targets.
The 14-50 lens I'm using is better in nearly every way, optically, than the
DZ 14-54 it is replacing. However, the apparant bokeh is between one and two
stops different than the 14-54. Compared to the 50/1.4, the differences are
even more stark. If the common wisdom about DoF, Bokeh and film/sensor
formats was totally true, then the images would have nearly the exact same
look regardless of the lens as long as the focal-length and aperture were
the same. And we know that isn't true.
But, basically, I'll let the pictures themselves show what I mean. The
violin photo is supposably an "impossible shot" with FourThirds, and if
we're talking about the usual FourThirds lenses, that would be true. (and I
do have 14-50 versions of that shot to prove it). But by changing out the
lens to a lens not designed for digital, not a zoom, and of one of the
oldest designs in the history of photography, we can achieve images that
defy the format.
I guess this wasn't for somebody who has already seen the light and moved
onto full-frame digital, but for those poor saps still using FourThirds, I'm
just helping them out by showing them another option. :) No way I'm going
to try and convince somebody who has a full-frame digital camera that
FourThirds is "just as good". It isn't. But I wouldn't argue against
FourThirds over it because of simple math.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|