Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] New here.

Subject: Re: [OM] New here.
From: "John A. Prosper" <prosper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998 01:58:48 -0500 (EST)
On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Peter A. Klein wrote:

|At 03:06 AM 12/17/98 EST, Gary Reeves wrote:
|
|>I am digitally printing for the holidays lots of my old shots of family.  I'm
|>really lamenting having relied on some budget Zuikos for so many years and
|not
|>capturing shots with as good of lenses as was possible.  
|
|To which lenses are you referring here, Gary?
|
|This brings to mind the recent thread where James Olsen (?) was
|contemplating replacing his 24/2 and 35/2 with a 28/2.8.  I mentioned that
|as a rule of thumb, a "one stop slower" lens is better at normal daylight
|picture-taking apertures than its faster counterpart, but the faster lens
|is better near wide-open.  The recently posted British article on
|rediscovering OMs said much the same thing. 
|
|But your own tests show the 35/2 to be significantly better than the 35/2.8
|across the board, and someone else favored the 24/2's quality over the 24/2.8.
|
|What gives?  Of course, mileage may vary as lighting, contrast and subject
|distance vary.  And we're not taking into account SC vs. MC.  But are some
|of the faster Zuikos just better corrected than the slower counterparts?
|Or is something else at work here--such as that the slower lenses are used
|more outdoors and treated more roughly?

Past discussions I have had with the Olympus America field testers
have led me to believe that Olympus' philosophy regarding lens
sharpness and serious users is that the targeted serious users would
tend to prefer the faster lenses which are still light compared to the
competition, and, consequently, more effort is expended toward
ensuring sharpness (i.e., contrast & resolution) in the faster lenese.
  
a few years ago, I asked one of the field testers, Pat McFarlane
(spelling?) for his opinions on a number of lenses with respect to
overall sharpness.  In virtually every instance, Pat selected the
faster lens (e.g., 21/2, 24/2, 28/2, 35/2).  The more modern 90/2 and
100/2 were deemed more sharper overall than the older 85/2.  Among
standard lenses, he considered it a tossup between the 50/1.8 and
50/1.4.  (At the time he already knew I owned the 90/2, so he didn't
even consider the 50/2 since he seemed to felt owning two macros that
close in focal length was a waste.  I think he considered the 50/1.2
to be too fast as well.)  As one would expect, the 180/2, 250/2, and
350/2.8 blew all other Zuiko teles away, although he did consider the
300/4.5 to be a credible but slow operational performer.  Pat felt
that the 35-70/3.6 was the sharpest zoom Olympus had ever made (this
was pre-35-80/2.8 ED) followed closely by the 50-250/5.  Pat seemed to
place great stock in lens contrast and tended to favor the more modern
lens units which were built to optimize contrast.

The other field tester, Vince Marino, preferred the easier-handling
180/2.8 and 300/4.5 to thier bigger brothers.  He generally seemed to
favor the lighter weight lenses, especially the teles, for ease of
portability. 

Both field testers are working pros.  Even though they DO work from
MTF charts and contrast figures and can tell you what is the sharpest
lenses accooding to that data, I specifically and independently
requested their own personal 'druthers.  Of course, this was nearly
five or so years ago, and those 'druthers may have evolved,



< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz