Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 35-70 2.8, 350 2.8 tests

Subject: Re: [OM] 35-70 2.8, 350 2.8 tests
From: frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:03:44 +0200
Always this stupid #%!&/* Lens testing sickness....

Don`t beleve anybody who tell he know the only truth about anything....
- This is What Arthur Land with his Color-Test does, altough he
Inroduces a new valuation system every year, each of them better than 
all of it`s 'best' predecessors....

... Sorry, but I often felt angry whe reading CoFo those day`s, today I don`t 
care
too much any more...Or?

Well don`t compare Apple with Eggs...
The Zuiko 2.8/35-80 does`t compare too bad with his opponents:
        Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 2.8/35-70 D        -> 75.1 
        Olympus Zuiko 2.8/35-80         -> 73.4  
        Cannon EF 2.8/28-70 L USM       -> 71.2
        Pentax AL 2.8/28-70 SMC-FA      -> 69.7

Altough differences in the Zoom range, these Lenses are more comparable.
The mentioned Leica Zoom has less speed, and less Zoom range!
 And all of these lenses are equal  in IMHO, tough the difference in 
Score match the diffrence in Zoom range.

Mabe interessting to know, that a Leica spokesman was very pleased,
when they introduced their new "Color-Foto Super test" in Nov 1994.
He really agreed with the new criteria`s because they are similar with 
the Leica-lens design criterias...
P.Ex. is centering a high-weight criteria, Which is alway`s a advantage 
for Leica, even over Zeiss. 
Sure the new Leica lens desigs are fantastic quality. But All of their
new lenses are heavier and larger than their predecessors. 

So don`t worry too much about the differences for general photography,
 until you use only Kodak technical-Pan documentation film, and always use a 
tripod.

Frieder Faig


On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 05:14:37AM -0400, Ilona Lemieux wrote:
> The september issue of the german "color foto" lists lens test results
> going back 10 years, or so. 
> 
> Seems the much lusted after 35-80 2.8 didn't hold up too well compared with
> 3 Leicas and a Zeiss, in spite of costing more than all but one: Zuiko =
> (73.4 points, "good") and 3100DM (1500 dollars?)
>                  Leica vario elmar 35-70 4.0 = (84.8 points, "outstanding")
> and 1950DM (975 dollars?)
> In fact, of the 5 manual focus standard zooms tested, it did worst.   What
> gives?
> 
> The much lusted after 350 2.8 scored 3rd best (90.1 points, "outstanding")
> of 4 big glass lenses tested in '94.  It was bested by the Nikon 400 2.8
> (91.4, "outstanding"), and the Leica 400 2.8 (95.7 ,  "superior").  It tied
> with the Leica as being most expensive(20,000DM).  Right behing the zuik,
> was the 400 5.6 Canon (87.1 points "outstanding") - and the Canon costs a
> paltry 3300DM!
> 
> Interesting is that those seldom lusted after AF Zuik zooms have pretty
> decent tests scores.
> 
> You can order from color foto the test magazine issues per email:
> 
> bestellservice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> frank, berlin
> 

< 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