Sounds good Dan (as far as your eyes are concerned). I don't think that the
21/3.5 or 50/1.4 would present as much of a test as the longer focal
lengths, because focus is less critical as the focal length gets shorter
(and especially with the relatively slow 21/3.5). With the 400/4 I would
guess that the focus should be as critical as the 180/2.5, however it is
more than 1 stop slower - perhaps the increased depth of field is 'helping'
just a little.
A strange one...
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of daniel
Sent: 15 June 2003 03:47
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Regarding my need to get my eyes ck
Regarding my need to get my eyes ck. sorry, poor conclusion from you all
that rather say it's my eyes than the lens. Anyway after a few rolls of film
through the Tamron 180mm f/2.5. My conclusion is I need to remember to rely
on the focus sharpness first not the aperture stopping down to insure
sharpness. Zuiko 21 f/3.5 sharp with my eyes (using a 1-2 or 1-13 screen)
Zuiko 50 f/1.4 sharp with my eyes (using a 1-2 or 1-13 screen)
Tamron 400 f/4 sharp with my eyes (using a 1-2 or 1-13 screen) Tamron 180mm
f/2.5; not completely sharp no matter what distance, having to rely on
stopping down the aperture to get anything right.
No matter what focus screen either.
So it's back to KEH or Tamron for repair.
I do note the 180mm slides have a lack of tolerance to critical focusing
outside the main subject. Dan
< 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 >
|