Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX

Bandicoot wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
Most lenses are pretty good at f/8. the real test is near maximun
aperture. that's where the Leica lenses would trounce the Pentax
optics.


Apart from this being hilarious in itself, your use of the word
'would' is
so enlightening. It's a plain statement that you haven't tried the
experiemnt, and aren't prepared to do so.

What a surprise.



Peter

I have tried similar experiments, as a matter of fact. I tested the
50mm Summilux-R (1969 version) against the then-current Nikkor of the
same speed (f/1,4), in 1971. The difference was clearly visible in an
8x10 print. The same roll of Panatomic-X was used, switched between the
two cameras. A Paterson test target was used. The Leitz lens was
clearly superior. The overall contrast was noticeably higher.
Astigmatism was noticeably lower, etc....

No contest.

The test was conducted at maximumn aperture. At f/8, there would have
been less difference.

"Bandicoot" wrote:

Downsides to using a macro for general photography: bigger, heavier, and
more expensive; almost always a stop or so slower than a non-macro of
equivalent focal length; often, but not always, has less attractive bokeh
than non-macro lenses. Exceptions to the latter are the Tamron 90mm, and
the Pentax macros, all of which seem to have very nice bokeh. (Personally,
I think good bokeh matters as much, if not more, in close work, so this is a
big Pentax plus for me.)


I agree that good bokeh is a bonus in close work, but not as a
substitute for sharpness. No sane picture editor would choose an
unsharp macro shot just because the out-of-focus highlights are
smoothly rendered. ;-)

Only a few macro lens designs have managed to combine sharpness and
smooth bokeh. They include the classic 1970s/80s 90mm and 105mm
f/2.5-f/2.8 designs from Kiron, Vivitar, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, all
of which provide "portrait bokeh" yet are also sharp.

Sadly, many macro lenses are optimised only for sharpness. For
example, the inexpensive Cosina-made Pentax and Canon AF macro lenses
are acceptably sharp but have harsh bokeh. The 55mm, 60mm and 105mm
Micro-Nikkors are very sharp, but with harsh bokeh, and the 105mm
f/2.8 Sigma macro lens is extremely sharp but with probably the most
unpleasant, harsh bokeh I have ever seen. Definitely one to avoid.

Bandicoot wrote:

Can macro lenses be used for normal photography as well? As in, can they
focus on infinity? And how does the picture look using it in this way?

Downsides to using a macro for general photography: bigger, heavier, and
more expensive; almost always a stop or so slower than a non-macro of
equivalent focal length; often, but not always, has less attractive bokeh
than non-macro lenses. Exceptions to the latter are the Tamron 90mm, and
the Pentax macros, all of which seem to have very nice bokeh. (Personally,
I think good bokeh matters as much, if not more, in close work, so this is a
big Pentax plus for me.)

My own experience with a macro lense is with a Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIS,
but I've heard that what follows holds true for many macros:

Yes, it is wonderfully sharp also at longer distances. I used it
extensively for reproduction (art), scientific & documentary work with
great satisfaction.

But when I used it for "general photography" (landscapes, people, etc.),
I was disappointed by the results: The pictures looked flat!
My favorite lenses give a sense of 3-dimensionality, atmosphere, weight
& solidity (sounds a bit like wine-tasting); these were lacking in the
Micro-Nikkor. It was like looking at a flattened-perspective Japanese print.
You may or may not like such a look, the fact is that I no longer use
the Micro-Nikkor for non-documentary purposes.

Chris

Bandicoot wrote:

Can macro lenses be used for normal photography as well? As in, can
they
focus on infinity? And how does the picture look using it in this way?


Downsides to using a macro for general photography: bigger, heavier, and

more expensive; almost always a stop or so slower than a non-macro of
equivalent focal length; often, but not always, has less attractive bokeh
than non-macro lenses. Exceptions to the latter are the Tamron 90mm, and
the Pentax macros, all of which seem to have very nice bokeh.
(Personally,
I think good bokeh matters as much, if not more, in close work, so
this is a
big Pentax plus for me.)


My own experience with a macro lens is with a Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIS, but
I've heard that what follows holds true for many macros:

Yes, it is wonderfully sharp also at longer distances. I used it
extensively for reproduction (art), scientific & documentary work with
full satisfaction.

But when I used it for "general photography" (landscapes, people, etc.),
I was disappointed by the results: The pictures looked flat!
My favorite lenses give a sense of 3-dimensionality, atmosphere, weight
& solidity (sounds a bit like wine-tasting); these were lacking in the
Micro-Nikkor. It was like looking at a flattened-perspective Japanese print.
Whatever the reason for this; bokeh, flatness of field or whatever - you
may or may not like such a look. The fact is that I no longer use the
Micro-Nikkor for non-documentary purposes.

Chris

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Bandicoot" wrote:

Downsides to using a macro for general photography: bigger, heavier, and
more expensive; almost always a stop or so slower than a non-macro of
equivalent focal length; often, but not always, has less attractive bokeh
than non-macro lenses. Exceptions to the latter are the Tamron 90mm,
and the Pentax macros, all of which seem to have very nice bokeh.
(Personally, I think good bokeh matters as much, if not more, in close
work, so this is a big Pentax plus for me.)


I agree that good bokeh is a bonus in close work, but not as a
substitute for sharpness. No sane picture editor would choose an
unsharp macro shot just because the out-of-focus highlights are
smoothly rendered. ;-)

Absolutely - and the Pentax ones are as sharp as any macro on the planet,
which is why the fact that they also have nice bokeh is so impressive.


Only a few macro lens designs have managed to combine sharpness and
smooth bokeh. They include the classic 1970s/80s 90mm and 105mm
f/2.5-f/2.8 designs from Kiron, Vivitar, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, all
of which provide "portrait bokeh" yet are also sharp.

Sadly, many macro lenses are optimised only for sharpness. For
example, the inexpensive Cosina-made Pentax and Canon AF macro
lenses are acceptably sharp but have harsh bokeh. The 55mm, 60mm and
105mm Micro-Nikkors are very sharp, but with harsh bokeh, and the
105mm f/2.8 Sigma macro lens is extremely sharp but with probably the
most unpleasant, harsh bokeh I have ever seen. Definitely one to avoid.

The classic Vivitar Series one 90-180mm f4.5 macro - that rare thing, a true
macro zoom - has surprisingly good bokeh, given that it has the twin
'handicaps' of being both a macro and a zoom, both of which can militate
against bokeh. However, it is still nothing like as nice as the fixed FL
Pentax macros in that respect (very sharp though). My other 'macro'
solution that provides quite good bokeh and good sharpness, plus light
weight for travelling, is a Nikon two element dioptre on my Angenieux
70-210mm f3.5.



Peter

wrote:

I have tried similar experiments, as a matter of fact. I tested the
50mm Summilux-R (1969 version) against the then-current Nikkor of the
same speed (f/1,4), in 1971. The difference was clearly visible in an
8x10 print. The same roll of Panatomic-X was used, switched between the
two cameras. A Paterson test target was used. The Leitz lens was
clearly superior. The overall contrast was noticeably higher.
Astigmatism was noticeably lower, etc....

No contest.

The test was conducted at maximumn aperture. At f/8, there would have
been less difference.


You are extrapolationg one or a few cases (however true they might be)
to make sweeping statements thet all non-Leica cameras and lenses are
"crap".

1) I like (some) Leica cameras and lenses (and Do use them. Most also
HAVE scratches and dings from use - just to get rid of a couple of
stereotypes).

2) It is impossible to say that brand X is better than brand Y:
No brand ALWAYS has better lenses than another brand. ALL brands have
their dogs.
At best, maybe out of 10 lenses, brand X has 6 that are better in most
parameters than Y, 2 which are more or less equal, one a bit worse and
one dog.
I might argue (probably truthfully) that my Leitz 180mm f/3.4 beats the
180mm & 200mm lenses of other brands in sharpness, but is behind several
for bokeh.
I could also argue that the Leica R 24mm (which luckily I don't have) is
worse in most parameters than most comparable lenses of other brands.

3) Leica runs the whole gamut: From lenses which are simply overpriced,
through those where you can ask "how much is that extra 10% quality
worth?" to some incredible bargains.

Anyway, if I were to be a brand racist, I'd choose Zeiss...
; )

wrote:

I have tried similar experiments, as a matter of fact. I tested the
50mm Summilux-R (1969 version) against the then-current Nikkor of the
same speed (f/1,4), in 1971. The difference was clearly visible in an
8x10 print. The same roll of Panatomic-X was used, switched between the
two cameras. A Paterson test target was used. The Leitz lens was
clearly superior. The overall contrast was noticeably higher.
Astigmatism was noticeably lower, etc....

No contest.

The test was conducted at maximumn aperture. At f/8, there would have
been less difference.


You are extrapolationg one or a few cases (however true they might be)
to make sweeping statements thet all non-Leica cameras and lenses are
"crap".

1) I like (some) Leica cameras and lenses (and Do use them. Most also
HAVE scratches and dings from use - just to get rid of a couple of
stereotypes).

2) It is impossible to say that brand X is better than brand Y:
No brand ALWAYS has better lenses than another brand. ALL brands have
their dogs.
At best, maybe out of 10 lenses, brand X has 6 that are better in most
parameters than Y, 2 which are more or less equal, one a bit worse and
one dog.
I might argue (probably truthfully) that my Leitz 180mm f/3.4 beats the
180mm & 200mm lenses of other brands in sharpness, but is behind several
for bokeh.
I could also argue that the Leica R 24mm (which luckily I don't have) is
worse in most parameters than most comparable lenses of other brands.

3) Leica runs the whole gamut: From lenses which are simply overpriced,
through those where you can ask "how much is that extra 10% quality
worth?" to some incredible bargains.

Anyway, if I were to be a brand racist, I'd choose Zeiss...
; )

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

Can macro lenses be used for normal photography as well? As in, can
they
focus on infinity? And how does the picture look using it in this way?


Downsides to using a macro for general photography: bigger, heavier,
and

more expensive; almost always a stop or so slower than a non-macro of
equivalent focal length; often, but not always, has less attractive
bokeh
than non-macro lenses. Exceptions to the latter are the Tamron 90mm,
and
the Pentax macros, all of which seem to have very nice bokeh.
(Personally,
I think good bokeh matters as much, if not more, in close work, so
this is a
big Pentax plus for me.)


My own experience with a macro lens is with a Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIS, but
I've heard that what follows holds true for many macros:

Yes, it is wonderfully sharp also at longer distances. I used it
extensively for reproduction (art), scientific & documentary work with
full satisfaction.

But when I used it for "general photography" (landscapes, people, etc.), I
was disappointed by the results: The pictures looked flat!
My favorite lenses give a sense of 3-dimensionality, atmosphere, weight &
solidity (sounds a bit like wine-tasting); these were lacking in the
Micro-Nikkor. It was like looking at a flattened-perspective Japanese
print.
Whatever the reason for this; bokeh, flatness of field or whatever - you
may or may not like such a look. The fact is that I no longer use the
Micro-Nikkor for non-documentary purposes.

Chris

Interesting you say that it specifically looks flat - people say the
43mmf1.9 SMC lens looks '3D'and looking at the sharpness curve across the
lens, it's rounded. Maybe this means the plane of focus is rounded, giving
a 3d appearance, whereas on the macro lens, the flat field makes it look
flat? I have no way of finding out if any of this is true, of course, but
it's a theory nonetheless.

Duncan.

I was waiting for some one to say that about the loupe. I even thought
of beating you to it by making my own comment; but I decided to wait
and see.

Yes, I do use my Pentaxes (I have an MX as well) for architectural
work. Also a Mamiya 645. I have shift lenses for both these systems.

What I liked about the Pentax LX when compared to the Leicaflex were
the two features the latter did not have: mirror lockup and no need to
cover the eye-piece when standing away from the camera (the Pentax
reads off the film plane during exposure; the Leicaflex had an
eye-piece blind or cover to avoid extraneous light entering the
eye-piece and affecting exposure).

Charles

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 00:03:26 +0100, "Duncan J Murray"

wrote:

Ahhhh... But didn't you know that the Pentax loupe is biased for photos
taken with Pentax??!!!!

Thank you for your post - I presume you stayed with Pentax for your
architechural work?

Duncan.

"Bandicoot" wrote:

The classic Vivitar Series one 90-180mm f4.5 macro - that rare thing, a true
macro zoom - has surprisingly good bokeh, given that it has the twin
'handicaps' of being both a macro and a zoom, both of which can militate
against bokeh. However, it is still nothing like as nice as the fixed FL
Pentax macros in that respect (very sharp though).

I have never seen that lens, let alone tried it, but have heard about
it from several people. A true macro zoom (1:1) would be a hugely
useful tool.

My other 'macro'
solution that provides quite good bokeh and good sharpness, plus light
weight for travelling, is a Nikon two element dioptre on my Angenieux
70-210mm f3.5.

Not 1:1 obviously, hence the " ", but still a good solution. Is your
Angenieux in M42 mount? I ask because I am not aware of any of these
lenses having been sold in Pentax K mount.