In a message dated 5/5/01 8:31:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Scott, I think this is a really good point. So my question to the group
> members who have tried a lot of lenses is, Which ones (Zuikos) should I
> pass up just because they are of mediocre quality? unless of course
> certain genes kick in :)
>
> Mike
I don't think there are any real "dogs" at all but just more compromises.
Real dogs I've owned are the cheapie 500/8 mirror teles, a 35mm Vivitar
preset T mount, 20/3.5 Lentar, 400/5.6 Vivitar, various off brand telephoto
zooms, etc. The dogginess can be seen on 3x5 one hour prints. But as far as
Zuikos are concerned, I carry around the little respected 135/3.5 and 200/5
even though I have the bigger Zuiko brothers, and the Vivitar 135/2.3 and
200/3 cousins. I do this because I can (physically put them in my small pack)
and because I want to. If you scan Gary Reese's tests, there seems to always
be (split inf.) some aperture where you can get B+ results with any of the
Zuikos with proper technique (aperture pre-fire and tripod).
Then there is the "perception" of lack of sharpness. I had little respect for
the 135/3.5, 200/5 and Tokina ATX 28-85/3.5-4.5 because on an OM1 or OM2 with
a regular screen, the image just looks crappy--grainy and dark. This gives
the perception in the viewfinder that they are not sharp. But once on film or
thru a 2 series screen, they are "perceived" to do much better.
Warren
< 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 >
|