> Interesting write-up, Ken, although I will reserve detailed comment
> until we see the pictures!
Fair enough. One reason why I'm holding back is because there are some
things happening that I didn't expect to see. I'm questioning it to the
point where I wanting to retest to verify my findings. On the internet,
misinformation lives on forever. I want to be responsible and make sure that
I didn't induce another element into the test before publishing on
www.zone-10.com. I'd rather not have another "Luminous-Landscape" moment. I
most certainly do not want to misrepresent either lens based on poor testing
and file handling techniques.
> Let's just say that, lens "character" aside, I am skeptical of even
> the theoretical possibility for two 100mm lenses at f/2.8 to display
> different depths of field, or "asymmetrical" depth of field.
Not only do I believe this to be possible, but extremely likely. The
position of the rear nodal-point can have a massive impact on this. As I've
mentioned numerous times before, many modern zoom lenses have very narrow
cones of blur expansion. And of course, the characteristic of the bokeh can
change so much from one lens to another. The 50/1.4, as an example, has a
very busy bokeh.
What I don't know, yet, is if I am subjecting the tests to focusing errors
or if the optical characteristics of the two lenses favor one side of the
plane of focus over the other. If I'm having focusing errors, then the
question is why am I consistantly focusing one closer than the other inspite
of using exactly the same settings? If I stop both down to, say, F4 for
maximum contrast and place the camera in live-view, I can get down to the
pixel for focusing. The exact same point is in focus and I do exactly the
same procedure to find focus. Absolutely nothing different at all. Camera is
locked down on a tripod, I swap lenses and repeat the test. I consistantly
am getting this focus shift. I'm thinking about focus shift when the
aperture is closed down, but that doesn't even make sense because it is
happening even on the tests where I don't touch the aperture after critical
focusing.
> But most important of all, I am really glad you could get your hands
> on a fabulous lens like the 100/2, and that you truly enjoy it for
> years to come.
Yes! This was made possible through the generosity of another list member.
Hmm. It may be telling, but I think this list member kept the 90/2. So, I
stand corrected. The 90/2 is the other excellent $1000 lens out there.
Judging from the crazed, fanatical, wild-eyed comments about the 90/2, I can
only imagine what it is like. If the 100/2 is this good, the 90/2 must have
angel wings on it. If it is better, I really don't care. This 100/2 is
already beyond awesome.
For as long as I've known Joel Wilcox, every time we'd get together for an
Iowa-Zuikofest, he'd go out of his way to get me to try one of his
uberlenses. The 35-80, 90/2 or 100/2 (whichever one it was or maybe both),
28/2, and so forth. I usually did the "see no evil, hear no evil" routine,
but once in a rare while I would actually handle one. My hands would get so
sweaty and I'd shake like a leaf since any one of those lenses was worth
more than my entire kit. I'd take a couple of pictures and quickly hand it
back to him and say "that's nice". I know exactly where those slides are and
which ones were taken with his lenses. Without a doubt, they were
good--except for the motion blurring.
One aspect of this, which is fascinating to me, is just how good the lowly
lenses--even the silvernosed variety are. Yes, the F2 lenses are generally
better, but there are no poor lenses in the bunch.
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/
|