Good thinking, Chuck. I did do the tests at all supported whole apertures.
One lens that never ceases to amaze me is my old 100/2.8 as it draws
the scene so dramatically different than other lenses. When
photographing test charts or even test subjects, it does not appear to
be anything special, but in actual use it is simply wonderful.
However, its bokeh does have the tendency to be a little rough on
FourThirds at some working distances and apertures. It may be possible
that this lens is optimized for closer working distances and the 2x
factor of FourThirds is pushing the lens into being used at distances
it isn't best at.
Same with my classic 35/2.8 which aldo shines on film, but is just
"normal" on FourThirds.
But the 35-80 is another story as it seems to be stellar in almost
every regard on either FourThirds or Film. (except for CA)
Regarding the contrast, the 50/1.4 is very contrasty in comparison to
my other classic Zuikos, and there is a difference in how it draws
some of the tonalities, but it's most certainly not the same as the
Leica lens. When shot at 50mm and identical apertures, the Leica
renders the scene differently and does what I've referred to before in
that it appears sharp even though there is blurring of some form.
I'd suggest, that the one trait about the Leica 14-50 images which
keep standing out to me and that's the extreme consistency from corner
to corner. It really is as good in the corners as in the center and
it's as good wide open as stopped down to diffraction limit. Without a
doubt this is the best FourThirds lens I've personally used. It and
the 35-80 are of the same grade, even though they are different
creatures.
AG
On Monday, July 5, 2010, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps what you're seeing and responding to is superior contrast
> performance. Gary's tests show high contrast results for the lenses you
> mentioned although the 100/2.8 only gets that at f/8. Other lenses are
> also noted for high contrast at specific apertures or ranges. Try some
> other Zuikos at those apertures.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Ken Norton wrote:
>> Moose, I think what I was saying is this:
>>
>> 1. I personally feel that most of the "Leica Mystique" is a load of bunk.
>>
>> 2. I'm afraid that I'm "seeing" these supposedly non-existent traits
>> in my own shots taken with a Leica designed and labeled lens.
>>
>> 3. Since we know that the "Leica Mystique" is pretty much bunk, then
>> it's obvious I must be getting better as a photographer. :)
>>
>> Maybe it's a little bit of both. Maybe it's all the lens and I'm just
>> along for the ride. Whatever it is, I'm pleased.
>>
>> Just for entertainment, I revisited a lens test I did a few weeks back
>> and compared images taken with every lens in my kit at overlapping
>> focal-lengths. It's rather interesting how the color and contrast of
>> the Leica lens is totally different than all of the Zuikos, but almost
>> without exception, the Leica shots had a well defined edge between the
>> subject (a stone statue) and the background. Not only that, but even
>> within the statue, the visual perception is the face having dimension.
>> Only three of the Zuikos did that: 50/1.4, 100/2.8 and 35-80, but
>> only the 35-80 had the tonal subtlety which the Leica had.
>>
>> 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/
>
>
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.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/
|