> The article points out that getting fast autofocus requires changing the way
> focus elements work in order to make them lighter and perhaps why the older
> manual focus lenses have the character they do.
Primary difference is internal-focus vs. focus by extension. Modern
lenses have all sorts of optical voodoo that corrects for the
focal-length loss and other things. It really is amazing what can be
done now in lens construction. My own experience and eyes very much
prefers normal focal length lenses to focus by extension, but long
telephotos and wide-angle lenses are better with internal-focus. There
are some hybrid approaches that definitely work well. My old Tokina
AT-X 35-70/2.8 was a hybrid focusing lens.
> I never found the 300/4.5 all that good. You must have an exceptional one.
I can thank Jim Timpe for this one. I've found it to be an
interestingly mixed bag of a lens. When used on film cameras, I
absolutely love the bokeh and overall rendering of the lens. It is
actually extremely sharp, but it is highly vibration-prone on the OM
bodies. When used on 4/3 cameras, the dispersion and purple-fringing
is problematic, but is a non-issue with the Canon 6D. The lens is
"pixel sharp" and exceeds the resolution of the sensor.
One photo that I think perfectly illustrates the look/feel of the
300/4.5 is here (second picture):
http://zone-10.com/d1/node/219
While I'm sure other lenses come close, I think there is just
something organic to this image and my experience with the 300/4.5 is
consistently so. It's certainly one of my "money lenses".
(Silvernosed, of course)
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|