Winsor Crosby blasted me:
> Excuse me, but... Why would a well made 5 element single
> focal
> length lens designed to compete with the best from Canon and
> Nikon
> professional systems be less sharp than a bazillion element
> zoom
> thing of plastic and glass permanently fastened to a plastic
> wonderbrick, the whole of which costs the same as the
> 100/2.8, even
> if it has the Olympus name on it? Apologies to owners of
> IS-3s and
> IS-30s, but although it is remarkable and convenient, it is
> not an
> OM.
Good points, Windsor. However, what I was getting at is that my
100/2.8 is one of those ancient SC, silver-nosed varieties that
most of you with your shiny new 100/2 lenses look down at.
There is a tendency to think that the latest/greatest is the
latest/greatest.
The unilens in the IS-3 is a phenonominal lens, but with a reach
of 35-180mm is slightly over-the-edge in its design. The IS-1
and IS-2 have a 35-135mm zoom which yields slightly sharper
pictures (in my experience) but requires less extreme
floating-element trickery to achieve supurb results.
When I talk about sharpness, it is still relative. To me, it
isn't sharp unless I can make an eye-popping 11x14 where the
film-grain is the limiting factor--not the lens. The IS-3 can
achieve those results if I use the right film and use aperture
priority to override the ESP program mode.
In today's standards, my 100/2.8 is a piece of junk because of
the specifications, formulations and coatings. There are some
VERY decent zooms out there that out-perform in nearly every
category, but yet, there is a unique quality to my particular
sample that yields image characteristics and warmth that no
other lens seems to match.
I agree that the lens was designed to compete with the best of
Canon and Nikon at the time. However, lens quality is a moving
target. All of the manufacturers continued to improve their
lenses since that time and samples from the late '70s and early
'80s pale in comparison to newer designs.
I have no illusion that my harem of SC lenses is any better than
anybody else's selection of newer lenses. Mine aren't perfect
and they demand extra attention to get flare-free and sharp
images. There are times where I must really work to get around
the limitations of my equipment. My point is that through the
ages, there have been "stand-out" lenses that have a
characteristic unlike any other lens. I feel that my 100/2.8 is
one such lens. I can't say whether or not any other Zuiko
100/2.8 matches my specific sample. Mine could have been an
aberation in manufacturing where somebody slipped a wrong
element in place or something. It could also have been an
incremental mid-stream product change. It could have had
something to do with the fact it got whammed against the side of
my truck. It could have had something to do with all of the
radiation from flying too much and being passed through hundreds
of X-ray machines...
Wonderbricks or not, we should expect nothing but perfection
from our newer lenses.
Hmm. Do pinhole cameras produce Newton's Rings?
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
< 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 >
|