Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Olympus Zuiko Auto-T 3.5/135,Nikkor 2.0/50 AI...... 2 lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:22 pm    Post subject: Olympus Zuiko Auto-T 3.5/135,Nikkor 2.0/50 AI...... 2 lenses Reply with quote

During the last week it was dark already when I came home, today I had the chance to be at home at about 4 pm, still at daylight (but overcast).

Fortunately, the pending adapter was in the mail today, so I could try the new Olympus lenses. Well, at least one, the 135mm, since my little daughter wanted her dad to play with her rather than do some test-shooting...

OK, here are two quick shots.

This one was taken with the Olympus Zuiko Auto-T 3.5/135:
...
At f5.6 and ISO400.

And that one with the Nikkor 2.0/50 AI, I got from Richard the other day:
...
At f2.8 and ISO400.

I am very pleased with either result!
The Nikkor clearly shows some warmer colours, as you can see in the grass or the colour of my daughter's jacket.
The Zuiko definitely produces a cooler colour cast, almost comparable to my Leica lens.
I do not have any preferences, since I mostly shoot digitally and it easy to adjust.

Both lenses show a very nice rendering of details and sharpness IMHO.
And the bokeh is not bad either.

Again I have realised that 135mm at a crop cam is pretty long, esp. when you shoot at poor light conditions. I do not use such a long lens often, so a lens of this performance and small size (!) will probably be my favourite 135mm.


Last edited by LucisPictor on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:23 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Both lenses show a very nice rendering of details and sharpness IMHO.
And the bokeh is not bad either.


Fully agree, sharpness is remarkable.
Congrats, Carsten!. Nice shots.

Jes.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nikor 2/50 just perfect , nice capture with a nice lens. 135mm Zuiko sharp, compact , but bokeh ?! not impressed me.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To judge on the bokeh of the Zuiko, I will need more test shots.
With highlights and different backgrounds...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Something's not quite right with the Zuiko shot, Carsten, but I'm not clever enough to work it out. Both shots look a little washed-out, possibly a little over-exposed, and maybe this is due to the camera and the low light. But the colour of the jeans in the first shot looks over-saturated to me. Is this direct from the camera or did you do any PP?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

congrats Carsten for your nice daughter! ( and also for your new lenses)


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both are great portraits, Carsten! With the second one being more emotionally strong due to closer framing.
And of course your daughter is the best of models Very Happy

But I agree about the lighting, there's something harsh about it, and the colours too, somehow on the acidic side (especially the Zuiko which is cooler), which is not really what Canon colours usually look at all.
I don't think it's the lenses, because they are two different focal lenghts and makers, yet both look much the same, very contrasted and pushed on the highlights. I think it's fault of the available light that was not ideal for portraits, I'm confident that in a different lighting environment, both lenses will perform better.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice to see a portrait with the 50/f2 - it seems to make a good portrait lens in the right hands Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

#2 is very special. That nikkor is one of the most pleasing in the range. The Olympus looks very good too. I think Orio got it right - the Canon was probably pushing very hard against an ISO floor, with a histogram over on the right. Good light will surely help both improve.


patrickh

Your collection is definitely moving up the slope Carsten


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks.

Peter, Orio and Patrick, I see what you mean and I agree!

It might have been the poor lighting but I rather think that additionally the "auto" function of Adobe Camera Raw did push the levels up to this effect. I will check again tomorrow and compare the JPEGs and the untouched RAWs to see if there is something to it...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard_D wrote:
Nice to see a portrait with the 50/f2 - it seems to make a good portrait lens in the right hands Wink


Cheers, Richard!

Now that I have shot some pics with the Nikkor, I understand why many users like this lens so much.
It seems to be a little gem! And it is very pleasant to use.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very lovely shots of your daughter. Congrats!
Surely the Nikkor is a gem. I love my Nikkor-H 50/2, too Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is weird!

This time the, generally very reliable, "auto" function of Adobe Camera Raw did a bad job.

Look at this photo, processed with "standard" parameters:
...

That is quite a difference, isn't it?


Last edited by LucisPictor on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carsten
Back in the bad old days when I used PS for RAW, I had the parameters set for the D70 specifically. Basic adjustments to take account of the standard way in which CameraRaw opened the file. I never ever used auto - it was much too unreliable and your sample shows just how bad it can get. Basically it ruined your shot with that first attempt. The problem is, as I see it, that auto is some (good) programmers' ideas of what the "norm" should look like. Then I started trying out specialized RAW convertors - and what a difference. There are several of them out there, some even free. My personal preference is for Bibble Labs, which has been around for some time, is relatively cheap, leaves the original alone, handles plugins and is constantly being improved (on v4.9 waiting for 5 to show up anytime now). Adobe used to lead the pack, but they are now bloated, overpriced and resorting to "kill" tactics (buy out someone smaller and better and shut them down, the model established by Bill Gates). They have few adjustments you can make without resorting to a conversion to get into PS! What a nonsensical workflow. Shocked Shocked Shocked
patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
This is weird!
This time the, generally very reliable, "auto" function of Adobe Camera Raw did a bad job.
Look at this photo, processed with "standard" parameters:

That is quite a difference, isn't it?


Carsten: remove the "auto" word from your vocabulary! Laughing Wink

Yes, much improved.

I hate Camera RAW. In my opinion, Camera RAW does a poor processing job. It completely falsifies Canon's colours. And stupid Adobe killed Rawshooter just to (badly) integrate a couple of it's features inside Litghtroom which in turn was raped in order to make it compatible with Camera RAW (and so you have many idiotic duplicated parameters).
They messed up everything, a great program (Rawshooter) and another potentially great program (Lightroom) just to preserve that stupid Camera RAW.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carsten - did you redo the second one as well? Look at what "auto" did to everything - saturation, contrast, luminance shift! It even managed to blow the highlights for you.

patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OMG

Orio and I seem to have said the same thing! I am really flattered and I mean that sincerely since I think Orio is the best artist/technician we have here.
patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
Carsten - did you redo the second one as well? Look at what "auto" did to everything - saturation, contrast, luminance shift! It even managed to blow the highlights for you.
patrickh


"Auto": the disgrace for the photographers! Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Carsten: remove the "auto" word from your vocabulary! Laughing Wink


Laughing I think I will. Wink

I normally do not use the "auto" feature (Remember? It's not a bug, it's a feature! No, that was Microsoft...). But when I wanted to upload these pics, I needed to be quick. Well, you have seen the result.

Anyway, I really like the Zuiko 135. And that is what counts... Wink


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
Carsten - did you redo the second one as well? Look at what "auto" did to everything - saturation, contrast, luminance shift! It even managed to blow the highlights for you.

patrickh


No, I will still have to...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carsten
I think we are all responding to the fact that the pictures (almost certainly both of them) were vastly better than they were shown to be by the software. That first version shows quite clearly in my view how easy it is to ruin a perfectly good shot in PP. We also understand the haste to which we are all prone (especially yours truly) - but at least with non-destructive raw treatment we can go back and redo the picture. I have found this the most compelling argument for raw - and have frequently gone back to some of my older shots to redo them with a new technique/software advance. Great that you saw what had happened and we can all see for ourselves how good these lenses really are. That first shot is now a humdinger Smile Smile Smile

patrickh


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrickh wrote:
OMG
Orio and I seem to have said the same thing! I am really flattered and I mean that sincerely since I think Orio is the best artist/technician we have here.


Patrick, it is me who am flattered! Thank you!!
But, I really must confess I am not a good technician at all. I know how to use a camera and a lens, from the experience, on the empirical/practical side. But I really have no knowledge of scientifically technical facts that lie behind this. There are folks here, like Veijo, who know immensely more than I do and deserve the title.
But, I am sincerely thankful for your high opinion of me! I will really have to do my best, to deserve it.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks very much, Patrick.

Yes, this is the main reason why I always shoot in RAW.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
patrickh wrote:
Carsten - did you redo the second one as well? Look at what "auto" did to everything - saturation, contrast, luminance shift! It even managed to blow the highlights for you.

patrickh


No, I will still have to...


This is what it looks like with only some basic PP:

...


Last edited by LucisPictor on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is correct developing. And a very nice photo.
ACR auto editing really blows the highlights beyond the acceptable - I wonder if the Adobe guys are blind or what.