Only those who mistakenly conceive of God as a separate, all powerful entity with a consciousness of it's own would think less of someone for this.
For time immemorial, the prevailing concept of "God" among the mystics of all religious traditions (the only people to be trusted on the matter) is that of a single energy that comprises the universe. It is neither the mover, nor the moved, but both. It has no capacity for malice or forgiveness or anything else, but through us.
Since we are all but manifestations of that one energy (call it God, Tao, Buddha-Nature, Brahman, whatever you want) and we certainly do a whole lot of "effing", the term OMFG is not offensive, but very essential to the continuous becoming of our world. It is only offensive to those who do not have direct knowledge of God (which is, granted, the vast majority of people).
Escape the dogma of religion and discover that the Kingdom of God is, truly, both within you and infinitely without you at the same time. I highly recommend Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy".
trifilmer wrote:
OK, forgive the mini hi jack of this thread...
Zuiko 28mm or any of the Takumars? Differences, opinions...
Also, difference between the Oly 28 3.5 and other versions?
I've heard the Tak 28/3.5 is good, too, but I've never used it.
The Oly 28/3.5 is the cheapest and by several accounts it is sharper (more consistent across the frame) than the 2.8. Like I said earlier, I am pretty sure I had a bad copy of the 2.8, because it wasn't very good at all, IMO.
cogitech wrote:
Only those who mistakenly conceive of God as a separate, all powerful entity with a consciousness of it's own would think less of someone for this.
For time immemorial, the prevailing concept of "God" among the mystics of all religious traditions (the only people to be trusted on the matter) is that of a single energy that comprises the universe. It is neither the mover, nor the moved, but both. It has no capacity for malice or forgiveness or anything else, but through us.
Since we are all but manifestations of that one energy (call it God, Tao, Buddha-Nature, Brahman, whatever you want) and we certainly do a whole lot of "effing", the term OMFG is not offensive, but very essential to the continuous becoming of our world. It is only offensive to those who do not have direct knowledge of God (which is, granted, the vast majority of people).
Escape the dogma of religion and discover that the Kingdom of God is, truly, both within you and infinitely without you at the same time. I highly recommend Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy". ...Show more →
This is supposed to be my point, even being a 'lazy catholic' person.
Anyway, one must avoid confrontation sometimes to be more considered/heard/respected. It's also convenient in this situation.
cogitech wrote:
I've heard the Tak 28/3.5 is good, too, but I've never used it.
The Oly 28/3.5 is the cheapest and by several accounts it is sharper (more consistent across the frame) than the 2.8. Like I said earlier, I am pretty sure I had a bad copy of the 2.8, because it wasn't very good at all, IMO.
The difference is noticeable, but not that much IME.
Given the price, though, it's almost unnacceptable.
I have the tak and think it is at least as sharp. However, by looking at the zuiko samples, I believe the zuiko has better color. The tak's color is pretty dull.
debuggerus wrote:
I have the tak and think it is at least as sharp. However, by looking at the zuiko samples, I believe the zuiko has better color. The tak's color is pretty dull.
I think the older versions of the Oly might be on the dull side, too.
Am I allowed to play? I don't have the 3.5 version, but I have the 28/2 and it has actually become one my favorite macro/flower lenses...not a use I had originally planned for it! I love the way it renders backgrounds.
me too tried to use zuiko lenses on a digital camera, or to use them with a film camera and was nothing but....severly disappointed. read too much positive reviews about he on the net.
a few words to my background: i have two degrees in photo design, used to work with nikon's film bodies in the 1990ies all over the world, then I have switched to canon digital and nowadays I am barely phtographing and run a small photo agency instead. so some experience is there, I guess.
in a word: all zuiko are clearly worse than the nikkors I used back then. and the expensive canons I use now are not faultless either. but old manuall zuikos are clearly weakest of them all.
my experiences towards zuikos are as follows (i own/use 2,8/24mm, 2,0/28mm, 3,5/35mm, 1,8/50mm, 1,2/50mm):
- poor sharpness in the corners
- too much distorsion
- flare as hell (the 24mm)
- ugly bokeh (both of the 50mm)
on the positive side would be, of course, small size and weight, and the low price.
now to the 3,5/35mm: I found it has way too much distorsion for a prime lens (good visible in the shots of the gas station above in this thread) and it is very unsharp in the corners even at f/11. i do not get it at all, why the people are soo excited wth this lens.
so my bottem line is: small lenses and nice to have but not really worth the hassle. every nikkor or canon counterpart will be visible better. dont quite get why so many people on the net are ravng so much about zuikos. sure, they are nice to use, especial with film bodies, but thats all. nothing outstanding.
juts my 2c and I wish all of you a lot of fun with your zuikos, after all I continue to use them, too!
that's a lot of vignetting and virtually none on the 2nd.