Pete writes:
<< it seems that the 28/3.5 depended on whether you got a good lens or a
bad lens. Gary's first test of it showed terrible results, but his
subsequent test showed it to be better than his test of the 28/2.8.
Variability! >>
Read read why I tested two 28mm f/3.5 lenses. The second test was an
attempt to see what a filter ring ding would cause in terms of lens
performance. I think you mixed up the two 28mm f/3.5 tests.
<< Many posts spoke poorly of the 28/3.5, almost no one spoke of the
35/2.8 at all >>
I've shot with the 35mm f/2.8 for decades. The hardest test of it was
microfilming, which I did frequently. At a magnification ratio of about
1:12, one can readily detect curvature of field effects, even at optimum
aperture. The corner contrast is too low to read anything written
lightly in pencil. This is apparently the threshold for a wide angle to
be able to get away with no close focus aberration correction mechanism
(which is why the 35mm f/2 doesn't offer it, either). I longed for a
35mm which had it. The same lens produced fine results at infinity,
which I could easily determine from B&W negatives produced from that old
high resolution film: H&W Control VTE Pan. There was amazing amounts of
fine detail in landscapes, esp. branches in winter scenes. After
acquiring a better built 35mm f/2, I've had no use for the f/2.8 But
then I've never subjected the f/2 to the same rigorous applications or
the same frequency of use.
Gary Reese
< 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 >
|