Listera wrote:
CamOp you had very nice lenses over there, wish I had a 90 / 2 as well.
A photo from my modest MC 100 2.8.
The 90mm is indeed a wonderful lenses on both the E-M1 and the A7r at least for my level of photography...
As for 250mm it was the first OM lens I bought. Why really I don't remember the rational now but I don't regret it and it prove itself very useable even hand held (at least with the Olympus body with IBIS). The focus ring is perfectly smooth I just need my left thumb to move it while holding the lens.
Great shot prashant. It's great to see the thread active lately.
I went to a clydesdale farm this past weekend and took some of the shots below with the Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 serial number 9xxxxx. All photos are post processed to taste.
Great shots guys! I bought my first ever Zuiko lens yesterday, the 28/3.5 together with an original set of 3 extension tubes for $40.
I should receive it by the end of the week and hopefully by then I will already have the adaptor that I also bought online.
I'll use it on a brand new Sony A7s that I picked up last Friday.
Is the 100/2.8 any good, compared to the Nikkor 105/2.5 P Auto?
Also, there's this local guy selling a mint Zuiko 18/3.5 for $850 but I am not really interested in spending that kind of money in such a special lens that won't get that much use...
the 100/2.8 is good in a vacuum, not worth it if you can shoot the Nikkor IMO.
if you like Olympus lenses, I suggest saving your pennies and getting either of the F2 macros or the 100/2. I paid many dollars for a nice example of the 90 F2 and it was worth every single one.
I just got my first Olympus lens, the 28mm f/3.5. The adapter arrived in the mail today, so I ran outside for a few minutes to try it out and compare it against the Contax G 28mm on my NEX 5R.
The look is so different from what I get with the G 28mm. The far corners were better at f/3.5 than the G28's at f/5.6 and maybe even f/8. A bit cooler. But the surprise for me was the compressed dynamic range, almost like is reduced the highlights and boosted the shadows, while maintaining sharpness and without a general veiling.
I only had a few minutes to play around (big project at work), I can't wait to get the time to take it out on a sunny day.
arduluth wrote:
The look is so different from what I get with the G 28mm. The far corners were better at f/3.5 than the G28's at f/5.6 and maybe even f/8. A bit cooler. But the surprise for me was the compressed dynamic range, almost like is reduced the highlights and boosted the shadows, while maintaining sharpness and without a general veiling.
I think lower global contrast is due to lower MTF at low spatial frequencies and perhaps worse transmission of the coatings (which will create veiling). That means you're getting light where there shouldn't be light (basically all highlights flare into midtones and shadows), so it's logical that the dynamic range is reduced then.
I was impressed by the resolution of the Zuiko 28/3.5 too when I had it, but not by the general rendering. I generally prefer the vivid look of Zeiss lenses over lenses that look like they "compress" the DR.
AhamB wrote:
I think lower global contrast is due to lower MTF at low spatial frequencies and perhaps worse transmission of the coatings (which will create veiling). That means you're getting light where there shouldn't be light (basically all highlights flare into midtones and shadows), so it's logical that the dynamic range is reduced then.
I was impressed by the resolution of the Zuiko 28/3.5 too when I had it, but not by the general rendering. I generally prefer the vivid look of Zeiss lenses over lenses that look like they "compress" the DR.
You're probably right and I'm not surprised. This is the first lens I've had that manages to be low contrast in quite the same way - some of the other lower contrast lenses give it away in a different way, with visible glow, a visible veil, or low resolution across the entire image.
Overall, I also prefer the transparent look of the Zeiss lenses I've used, but I also like the idea of a 28mm that I can use without having to stop down to f/8 or f/11 for better corners. I'm sure there are other lenses that do this without sacrificing all the contrast, but they're probably out of my budget for the foreseeable future.
The Zuikos do take more post processing effort than some other lenses, in my case, modern Canon EF lenses. The end results can look pretty good though and the lenses small size can be a plus sometimes.
I have to admit that I'm really taking a liking to the Canon 50 f/1.8 II image quality and enjoy the general convenience of it too.
arduluth wrote:
Overall, I also prefer the transparent look of the Zeiss lenses I've used, but I also like the idea of a 28mm that I can use without having to stop down to f/8 or f/11 for better corners.
I had the OM 28/3.5 before buying the Distagon 28/2.8. It was a nice little lens (though I like the the Distagon much better), and you're right that it's sharp in the corners without having to be stopped down much. When I did need to stop it down for the DoF, though, there was a pretty serious drop-off in detail and contrast from f/11 to f/16. I don't know if it was from diffraction or what (this was on my original 5D with big fat photosites), but I pretty much considered it unusable at f/16. YMMV.
The OM Zuiko 28mm f/3.5 is only single coated. The f/2.8 is multi-coated and the f/2 version comes in both types.
I always found that, as my only single-coated lens, it was a bit short on contrast compared with the others. This would explain why it has less-than-ideal MTF performance. However, its real world performance is fine as long as you keep this rather minor shortcoming in mind.
