Thanks to those who responded to my question on the above topic.
C.H.Ling wrote:
=====================================================================
I know that some of the P&S are quite sharp even with Zoom lens. But
the Zuiko 37-70/4 should be okay although I didn't own one. Since both
Modern Photography and Gary's test shown it is a good lens. What is
the condition of your 35-70/4? Many Zuikos are very old, they properly
need some cleaning. . . .
(snip)
. . . Regarding over exposure, it will wash out slide but not easy for
negative, normally they will bring higher contrast. But I didn't know
what will happen if they are severely over exposed. I recommend you
have a look on the Zuiko to see if it is crystal clear.
=====================================================================
You're correct, of course, I'm getting mixed up - it's UNDER exposure
that washes out negative films! The reason I'm rusty on this is
probably because my OM-2S is so accurate that I hardly ever experience
over or under exposure :-) (Provided, of course, that I change my LR44
alkaline batteries before their voltage starts to drop significantly -
up until now, I can't get silver oxides in Indonesia).
As to the state of my Zuiko 35-70 f4 zoom, I think it's clean. I've had
it for over 15 years and use it continually but I've kept it in good
shape. However, from looking at Gary Reece's lens tests, it seems I've
been using the softest setting for this lens, i.e. at 70mm and f/4. I
do this to get a good perspective for portraits and to minimise the
depth of field but, apparently, this also gives me the lowest
definition for that lens. No wonder I thought it seemed a bit soft!
Incidentally, IMO the lens looks rather ridiculous at its 35mm setting
- must be the biggest 35mm f4 I've ever seen! Still, I guess it's an
old and outdated design, with the conservative zoom range and bulky
construction typical of the period.
Gary Reece wrote:
=====================================================================
You can compare results of the 35-70mm f/4 S Zuiko to other zooms at:
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Note the Tokina 28-85mm
f/3.5~4.5 AT-X results I just posted. It is a fine lens that fills a
gap
in the OM System Zuikos.
I have a Leica Z2X with a 35-70mm Vario Elmar. It is quite a fine lens,
but prone to flare if the sun hits the front element. I think it's the
same lens as yours. I can't do standardized testing of it because
everything is automatic as you pointed out. But subjectively in the
sharpness department, it is a winner. Color Foto tests have it right up
there with the best modern SLR lenses. I shot a roll with a Olympus
Stylus Infinity Epic DLX (the one with the fixed focus f/2.8 lens) and
it didn't look to be in the same league as the Vario-Elmar results.
If you are looking for a comparative Zuiko to the Vario-Elmar, try the
35-70mm f/3.6 For the range you seek, I'd recommend the Tokina.
=====================================================================
Gary, thanks for that. I've referred to your lens tests on a number of
occasions in the past but I obviously didn't look carefully enough.
However, I think I understand more about it now (see my reply to
C.H.Ling above). And you're right, the Leica Z2X and Mini Zoom use the
same lens; the main differences between the cameras are the body styles
and the auto focus (active on the Mini Zoom, passive on the Z2X). BTW,
although I feel more attracted to prime lenses right now, that Tokina
28-85 certainly looks interesting - how do its size and weight compare
to the Zuiko 35-70 f4?
Regards,
Ray
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|