Have a look at this post:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1554718&postcount=1294
It's, of course, a small web image, but the person claims it to be
shot wide
open, and to my eyes, the resolving power and freedom of coma looks
really,
really good right into the corners. If this was shot on fine-grained
film, it
looks like it could happily print quite big!
I know they are two wildly different lenses, but by comparison, I
stopped my 21mm f/2
down to f/4 for this following shot, but if you carefully examine it
(again, small size,
sorry) it's clear that the 35/2.8 looks better in its corners at f/2.8
than what my
21mm does in it's corners at f/4.
http://philosomatographer.deviantart.com/art/The-Specialists-194636278
P.S. Despite Moose's agreeable cropping advice on this image, I have
to say, when I look
at my 12x16in print of this image, it's quite extraordinary (the
quality). At this
print size, I am not sure that I "miss" the quality from medium format
(which I shoot
mostly). Sometimes, 35mm film can be surprisingly nice, despite the
fiddly small negatives.
All aspects of one's technique needs to come together though, and I've
found at these print
sizes, the right enlarger lens makes a significant difference.
(The last model EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8N is stupendous, my search for the
right enlarger lens
ended when I got it a year ago.)
Anyway, what do you guys think? Does anybody have a shot like the top
one (night shot, bright lights,
distant cityscape) with one of the fast wides (21/24/28 F2) to
compare? C.H. Ling, you
always surprise us with some good test shots, have you any?
cheerio,
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|