> I think I'm just going to state my initial impressions rather than post
> anything. 85/2 was a little softer than 90/2 which was a little softer
> than 100/2 when shot wide open. The 90/2 leaves nothing for me to wish
> for, but then the 100/2 overgoes it a bit. I can see why people say
> it's too sharp for portraits.
I just chimped my test shots from last night too. First of all, there is
nothing to criticize about the 90/2, but on my E-1, the 100/2 seems a bit
edgier (sharper?) at F2 with what appears to be a nicer bokeh. The 90/2 is
heavily corrected for closer focusing and doesn't seem to have the same
amount of organic feel to the images. The 85/2 and 100/2.8 seems raspy in
comparison. Of course, this is just chimping. Nothing critical
Joel shot full-frame with the ghetto cam. I'm of the opinion that when shot
on full-frame, with the lower magnifcation for final use, the 100/2 is
almost disturbingly sharp. Moose-eye sharp. Not to say that Moose is
disturbling... Oh, never mind.
What is so cool, though, is that we have such wonderful lenses in the OM
mount. Think about it: 85/2, 100/2.8, 90/2, 100/2...they all are impressive
lenses in their own right. Each one has strengths, but there's not a dog in
the bunch.
This was my first time handling the 50/1.2. From a bokeh perspective, it
floored me that looking through the 5D yielded almost exactly the same
look/feel as the 100/2 on the E-1. I did a double-take.
We really do need to conduct a remedial filter cleaning class for Joel. :)
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/
|