>>4308536>>4308470Nobody moved the goalposts except you bud.
My comment specifically focused on fast, wide and long lenses, and some of the colour abberations they are prone to in particular, and the challenges related to getting the best out of them in low light.
As everyone has pointed out, you've take a photo of scenery in daylight, with a standard lense and small aperture, on BW film.
Even funnier is that you think the scan is sharp; it isn't.
Further,
>hss is not x-sync>bright matte screens don't show actual dof with fast lenses>but it doesn't matter because olympus never made any that weren't 50mm's with so much spherical abberation they don't have a focus plane so much as a realm>here is a photo taken in low light, on colour film, with a sharp modern lense focused off centre exhibiting very little abberation, scanned on my 42mp scanning setup, and printed on my pro100s>i also own the zuiko 50/1.4 btw, it is absolutely ordinary and the zuiko 50/1.8 kills it, let alone the 50/3.5, both of which I also own and have used for the exact same kind of photography>and pentax m42, and k, and ricoh k, and fuji m42, and pre-ai nikkor, and minolta md, and minolta af, and canon fd, and canon ef, and russian shit, and several MF systemsI speak from experience, not shit I read on petapixel last week.