It sure looks good to me. Some of my best shots with my 4/250 have been
at full aperture. Any time the background is several feet away from the
subject, it works perfectly.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 3/1/2017 10:47 PM, Rick Beckrich wrote:
All this talk of old lenses rang true. I just unearthed my 4/200 Zuiko, the
one with the stuck diaphargm.
http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=21623
For a grab shot of another of my favorite birds... Straight from the camera
(because I don't know any better.)
Old school Rick (Really old)
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2/28/2017 1:48 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
Here is my only visitor today, following a downpour of rain this
morning. At normal size, it looks fine. I went to a larger size for the
enlargement, after all of the "size matters" discussion on the LUG, but I
think the extra enlargement does an injustice to a lens from the 1980s.
http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/20170228-DSCF0255.JPG.html
You may be unfairly maligning the lens. There's a lot of noise from ISO
3200 which obscures detail. The other thing that happens as resolution gets
higher and you crop further is that DoF gets shallower. The X-T2 has 22%
greater nominal resolution, so when you magnify it a lot, magnification is
higher than you ever used on the X-T1. If you look at DoF
charts/calculators, you will see that the two factors driving it are human
visual acuity and magnification. Magnify more and DoF gets shallower.
It looks to me as though the head is slightly OoF, while feather detail
suggests the plane of focus is on the front of the body.
Noodling around a bit in PS; with more light, ISO of 400 or less, focused
maybe 3/4" further forward, and I'll bet you wouldn't be faulting the lens.
Yeah, yeah, I know; it's essentially impossible to nail focus that closely
with living birds - but it's not the fault of the optics. :-)
Big old lenses aren't necessarily lesser quality. When I tested the early
Nikkor-Q 200/4 from the early 60s that I inherited from my dad against the
later, more compact, Zuiko 200/4 and 200/5, the Nikkor handily whupped them
both, center and edge, in resolution @ 100%.
There is a price to pay in this case in size and weight. The 200/5 was one
of my favorite walking around lenses, and is WAY smaller and lighter than
the "Q", but not as good optically.
Causes & Effects Moose
--
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/
|
