In my previous mail read 'subjective or objective' for 'subjective'.
-Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Chakravorty" <suchismit@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5
> I would be interested to know if there are any subjective compasirons between
> the ( Zuiko 50/2 or 50/3.5) and the
> (Micro Nikkor 55/3.5 AIS(~1969) or Micro Nikkor 55/2.8 AIS). According to
> many Nikon enthusiasts these two 55mm
> Micro Nikkors are the sharpest Nikkors ever. I would love to watch the above
> Zuikos and Nikkors cross swords !
>
> -Tim
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Winsor Crosby" <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:11 AM
> Subject: Re: [OM] 50mm f2 vs 3.5
>
>
> > >I lust after the 50mm f2, but was wondering, does it's cheaper f3.5
> > >brother give as sharp of an image?
> > >
> > >I've read about the f2, it's legendary, but I don't know much about the
> > >3.5.
> > >
> > >Someone enlighten me.
> > >
> > >Albert
> >
> > I think that my understanding of the Olympus strategy will help to
> > understand. They decided to initially come out with a compact system
> > that equaled or bettered any one else's system for quality of image.
> > The second phase was to come out with lenses that would wow everyone
> > by pushing the envelope not only for quality, but especially for
> > speed. Size was secondary. The 3.5 was first phase and was of the
> > highest quality, but about as fast as anyone else's at the time.
> > --
> > Winsor Crosby
> > Long Beach, California
> >
> >
> > < 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 >
> >
>
< 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 >
|