I seriously doubt that.
As much as I love the OOF effects of the 50/1.4, I'm inclined to think my
MIJ 50/1.8 may be a better overall performer (heresy?) and I've just
unearthed a 35/2.8 to try, too.
The other old guy, Rick
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|