> Not trying to. You've actually been hinting at it for a while, plus
> you've got that other 100 ...
I was comparing the 50/1.8 to the 50/1.4 and the 100/2.8 to the 100/2.
Logic would say that the more expensive lens should be a better lens,
right? You would be correct in that assumption.
The 50s were the latest/best versions. I think what I'm seeing is that
for closer focusing, the 50/1.8 is very much out of its league. At
wider apertures, the lens just renders out of focus details in a "wild
seas" look. Straight out of "Deadliest Catch". However, stop it down
more or move farther away from the subject and the 50/1.8 is a very
fine lens. It does seem to be optimized for longer distances. The
50/1.4 produces nicer bokeh up close and personal, but at longer
distances it gets pretty rough. I'm intruigued by the 50/1.8 and am
wondering if there is anywhere where it is better than the 50/1.4.
Compared to older 1.4s, I'm sure it is, but not against the last ones
in my testing so far.
The 100mm lenses are in a similar situation. The 100/2.8 is a
mid-series construction. I know the last generation has some
improvements. When focused close using extension tubes, the 2.8 does a
remarkable job and has smooth, creamy bokeh. For a typical headshot
portrait, the 2.8 seems to be past the rough edges department. But in
that 1-2 meter distance, the background turns into Season Two of the
above mentioned television show. Once you get to F5.6, things are
evened out, but at F2.8 and F4, you're launching the lifeboats.
The 100/2 is, of course, a lens of another class. When comparing full
images, it's really difficult to identifiy it from the 2.8, but once
you start looking closer, the background turns rough in the 2.8.
Again, this is for 1-2m distances. Beyond that and it's more of a draw
as each lens is unique. I'd say that for head-shots, the 2.8 is
probably going to give the illusion of greater DoF so it's easier to
keep the nose and ears in focus.
I lived in blissful ignorance for all those years. In fact, I was
thinking back to my initial purchase and realized that the 100/2.8 was
my very first Zuiko because of my other cameras I had. The 35/2.8 was
purchased the next week, but the 100/2.8 was first. It remains my most
profitable lens. The 100/2 is heavy, big and gives me a little filter
ring grief with my lack of a polarizing filter covering that size.
(till I get the store to buy another step ring).
The 100/2 is the only lens I've ever used that is sharper wide-open
than any film or sensor I have is able to record. Mind boggling sharp.
Another thing I've been noticing over and over again is the apparant
focus shift as the aperture is closed down in comparing the lenses.
I know testing is no substitute for actually getting out and shooting,
but when I see something odd happening, I like to get an answer why.
Part of this is the fact that I have to push my equipment so much
harder to get what I want.
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/
|