My PT renewal form came in the mail today. I just may well go for the
three-year subscription paid up front, but include two cents' worth of things
I'd like to see in future issues:
<< ...there isn't much being written about
lenses subjectively outside of Japan. >>
I'd like to know what the Japanese are writing. The only inkling I have had
of this was in those marvelous 'bokeh primer' articles in a 1997 PT issue.
One writer said Minolta lenses had a particularly good reputation, as did the
Konica Hexar lens, Bronica lenses, and Zeiss zoom lenses. I own the Hexar
and agree completely. But as a technical neophyte, I'd like to know what it
is about the others' designs that sets them apart, and why.
<< It's a "gentle" lens but a nice one, and it doesn't suffer from some of
the
typical flaws of fast Planar-types generally. >>
What are those typical flaws? And how did Oly's designers avoid them?
(presume explanation is forthcoming.) Perhaps there needs to be a "25 Best
Lenses" article to accompany the annual best camera roundup. And, not being
a professional who can write off equipment costs, I'd prefer to learn about
bargain lenses (like the 50 f/1.8) costing $200 or less.
< 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 >
|