Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] olympus Digest, Vol 35, Issue 31

Subject: Re: [OM] olympus Digest, Vol 35, Issue 31
From: Nicholas Herndon <nherndon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:27:15 -0500
Ken, I'll add a couple more to your list...the ZD 14-54mm, the 38/2.8 on the
Contax T2, and the OMZ 50/1.2 all come to mind.  But it may be due to the
fact that all three lenses are high contrast, or have good "micro contrast"
or whatever, more than any kind of particular "3D rendering."  That 50,
especially, is one hell of a lens. I've been using it a lot lately.
An example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pooroldpunch/6168363516/in/photostream/
(please excuse the poor scan, the film was not entirely flat in the
carrier.)


Message: 11
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:32:45 -0500
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] (OM) Upgrade to E-30?
To: Olympus Camera Discussion <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
       <CABtFEATe8AErcm8bEApJikRe0JqZyRmTLq+QqWLQQrdqb5cmDg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> ?18 months ago in the midst of capturing rose flowers with the E-3 and
100/2
> I was distracted by some large native birds perching close by - 25 metres
or
> less away. So I took a couple of shots. I was quite disappointed by the
> amount of blue fringing on the images.


I haven't seen ANY fringing of any kind with the 100/2. Suppose I need
to look closer? Or maybe my E-1, L1 and Ektar 100 isn't good enough
for it to show up. Sample variance, maybe?

I did a head-shot portrait last night that almost creeped me out. Had
the 100/2 mounted on the E-1. Working distance was somewhere between
2-3 meters. Wide-open. This lens is not kind to someone who has bad
skin.

One thing that I find intriquing, though, is the 3D rendering. I've
talked about this before (to the point where some people would like to
gag whenever I bring it up, but let them just grab a bag, 'cause I'm
going to do it again). I'm not talking about bokeh or gaming the
system with focal lengths, but the odd "wrap-around" characteristic
that a few Zuikos have. The lowly 100/2.8 has a touch of it, but the
ones that stand out to me are the 35/2, 35-80 and 100/2. The 90/2
kinda sorta does, but not in the same way as its rendering is typical
but "more-better". This 3D "wrap-around" feature is something that is
hard to describe, but will jump out at you once you see it and
understand what it is you are seeing. The 35-80, is so blatent about
it that I think it is probably the king of it--to the point where a
person can pretty much identify unlabeled pictures taken with it. The
100/2, on the other hand, will do it, but maybe in a more controlled
fashion. It is possible that the 100/2 is screaming it out even louder
than the 35-80, but then other bokeh characteristics kick in and
balance it out.

Thinking it was just me, Candace did a portrait session this week in
which she used the 35-80. I'll let her address it in her own words, if
she wishes, but I could immediately identify that the picture was
taken with her 35-80. To bring it back on topic, I think she used her
E-30.

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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [OM] olympus Digest, Vol 35, Issue 31, Nicholas Herndon <=
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz