I *think* you are right Albert.
I *know* that the article you quote is not right.
Even if a given lens is sharper when stopped down, it does not follow that a
fast lens is sharper than a slow lens, in fact the behaviour of the given
lens tells you nothing about the behaviour of another lens. In fact another
lens could be less sharp when stopped down.
That is an example of a syllogism. Example - I have two dogs, they have
four legs each. An octopus has eight legs. Therefore my pets must be an
octopus.
Piers
OM content - I have photos of this Jack Russell octopus taken with an OM to
prove that it has eight legs. The octopus is available for endoscopic
evaluation, by appointment.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Albert
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:53 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Is this statement true??
"Almost any lens is sharper stopped-down than it is wide-open. So
besides focusing better and more accurately, a fast lens is usually
sharper at the same aperture as a slower lens, simply because it's been
stopped-down more."
That's from an article on photosig.
I don't think that's true. It's easier to make a sharp slow lens. A
50mm f3.5 @ f8 I wouldn't be surprised if it was as sharp or SHARPER
then a 50mm f1.4 @ f8.
Am I wrong, or is the article's statement wrong??
Albert
< 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 >
|