This all makes me happy, since I'm ordering one in time for our cruise in
January. His Mooseness, The Possessor of Wisdom About Less-Expensive Glass
convinced me to try it after his recommendation about "40-150 The Lesser" was a
rousing success. I don't want to mention this in front of him, lest he gets a
big head about it.
Paul Braun
Certified Music Junkie
"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." -- David St. Hubbins
"Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life" - Berthold Auerbach
> On Nov 28, 2014, at 15:54, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 11/27/2014 12:15 PM, Walters, Martin wrote:
>> Chuck:
>> Will be interested to hear what you think of the mZ 75-300. As I remember,
>> Moose has one of these and likes it. The reviews suggest that it's
>> generally pretty good up to a 200-something focal length.
>
> I like it right up to 300 mm.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Oly75-300/CaliforniaJay.htm>
>
> I think there are a couple of reasons folks are often wrong about the long
> end.
>
> 1. DOF gets shallow faster than you might imagine. Very few of us have much,
> if any, past experience with 600 mm AOV lenses, especially hand holdable
> ones, and it's easy to miss that factor. I took some shots of dew drops on
> spider webs with it @ 300 mm on my E-M5, and didn't like what I saw in a
> brief check on the LCD. I switched the lens and tripod to the GX7, and
> thought, on that casual basis, that the Panny did better.
>
> When I actually looked closely @ 100%, back home on the big screen, I
> discovered that each had a really sharp, quite shallow, plane of focus, but
> it was indifferent places/depths on the two camera/lens combos! How much of
> that was operator and how much difference in the AF systems, I don't know.
> The reason I missed this in the field was that I only looked at the very
> central portion enlarged on the LCD. (But Carol, Bob and Joan were moving on
> through the Botanic Garden, and already out of sight, so I needed to get
> moving. :-) )
>
> I do know that I use the MF ring, enlarged LCD view and focus bracket more
> now than before when out there in super-tele land. And it does make a
> difference. It's easy to forget how 'exotic' a 600 mm AOV really is, and that
> it requires more care and attention than more 'normal' focal lengths to get
> the best results.
>
> This should give an idea of the shallow DOF. I should mention that this isn't
> a small fern; the head is inches across, shot from say 12-15 feet, where I
> couldn't use my feet to get closer.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Oly75-300/FiddleHead2.htm>
>
> 2. Images from this lens, esp. including the long end, respond quite well to
> deconvolution in post to bring out/clarify/sharpen details. With capture
> 'sharpening' (Correction? Clarifying?) with FocusMagic as a regular part of
> my work flow, I get lots and lots of really sharp images at 300 mm. It's in
> this factor where bench tests may not be accurate predictors of practical
> results.*
>
> Long View Moose
>
> * Mostly aren't, I think. "Look at that MTF curve fall off! Oh Dear!" "So why
> do I have these lovely, sharp images?"
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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/
|