Someone long ago (might have been Giles Stewart) did a side-by-side
comparison of the 80/4 and the 90/2. The photo was of raindrops on the
windshield of a car. This was not to compare resolution, sharpness,
macro ability, or attractiveness of the lens as jewelry, but just the
impact in a normal photograph. The 90/2 rendered the scene with depth
that was almost living and breathing as compared with the flatness of
80/4 rendering -- and it was palpable from the web images, obviously.
Had I seen only the photograph made with the 80/4, I would have thought
it was an excellent lens. The 90/2 is just something else in those
situations.
However, I don't know if I would try to argue that at the mag ratio Ian
used the 90 would be better. I wouldn't hesitate to use it because it
is convenient and the results would be good enough for me, most likely.
If I were trying to win a sharpness contest, I might use a 50/3.5.
Joel W.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012, at 10:44 AM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Those are nice. The Z 80/4 may be under appreciated. The bokeh tends
> to be very smooth. It is a symmetric design, IIRC.
> Did you use it on the autotube?
>
> Mike
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|