> Well said, Sir Silver.
Thank you.
> Couldn't agree more. The OMZ 300/4.5 is amazing. The 200, even mine with
> the frozen diaphragm, surprisingly good wide open. Te
> he 100/2.8, mostly a disappointment; but my 24/2.8 shows some sign of
> promise (?)
I'm not sure what to think about the 24/2.8. It seems to be a bit
better on the E-1 than the DMC-L1. On the L1, the image just looks
flat. On the E-1, I get some dimensionality. I'm not sure this is
something that is overly apparant in an A-B comparison, but seems to
be one of those things that bears out over a body of images.
On the flip side, I think the 50/1.4 does a better job on the L1 than
the E-1. The 35-80 is better on the E-1 than the L1. Of course, a lot
of that might be just handling issues.
Or it could just be that I don't have the foggiest idea what I'm
talking about and just blowing smoke.
AG
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|