John A. Prosper wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 1998, gma wrote:
>
> |On a different topic, I took a look at the mp-zuiko-tests page on your
> |site last nite. I was quite surprised at one of the conclusions I drew
> |from the data: that the Zuiko zooms are every bit as good as the primes
> |(if not better!) I base this mainly on a comparison of the resolution
> |test numbers. For example, the 35-105 at 105 appears to be
> |substantially better than the 100 F/2.8 and even the 100 F/2.0 !! And
> |the 35-70 F/3.6 at 35 betters the 35 F/2.0.
> |
> |There are counterexamples, but my point is that I'm surprised the zooms
> |are even close to the primes and astonished that the #s in many cases
> |are better. Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on this? Or is
> |my interpretation of the data faulty?
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that the relatively lower
> contrast of zooms, caused by their higher lens element
> count, will always cause them to be lesser in sharpness to a
> fixed lens built to similar design standards.
John;
I think you're stating here what I assumed would be true, that fixed would
be sharper than zoom, all else equal. But the data in the mp tests on
Lees' page seems to contradict that somewhat.
I've always blindly bought primes for the very reason you've stated. But
after seeing the numbers, perhaps a couple of the Zuiko zooms would give
results of equal caliber?
One reason I'm asking is that I've found a guy who's got 4 or 5 Zuiko zooms
he's going to be selling and I'm wondering if I should pick up a couple.
I'm thinking specifically of the 24-28 and the 35-105.
george
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|