> It's completely wierd that the 100/2.8 did so poorly on Gary's testing.
> It's the sharpest lens I've owned. By his reconing, it's not as sharp as
> the 50/3.5 or 135/3.5 or 200/4. That's completely the opposite of my
> experience. I am a firm believer in the scientific method. "It baffles
> me," he bellowed. (photo puns)
Well Gary didn't test *your* 100/2.8 did he ? Maybe Gary's sample wasn't
too good or maybe yours is exceptionally good. You can't expect every lens
coming off the line to be *identical*, and then there is the effect of what
may have happened to it in the intervening years. If it works for you -
great - don't agonize over a lens test.
...Wayne
< 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 >
|