No - something different.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Donald Shedrick
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 5:35 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] E-1 lenses resolution vs conventional lenses - fact or
hype?
I agree there have been advances since the 70's, and some of the later
Zuikos have incorporated them (such as the 250mm f2), as have Nikon,
Canon, etc. But the E-1 hype would have us believe that they have come
up with something better than these advances just for digital.
--- Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu <lamadoo@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Don asked, perhaps with tongue in cheek,
> >What new technology in glass or lens
> >design has enabled this?
>
> [Lama clears his throat, takes a sip of water and begins.] Uhm, this
> may be a bit awkward so you may want to send the children out of the
> room while I explain this.
>
> Some of the early lenses, though okay in 1972, were not leaders in the
> relm of sharpness. For example, why did it it take more than 10 years
> to produce a superbly sharp STANDARD LENS??
>
> Late designs like the 90/2 and the 35mm-70mm f/3.6 zoom were obviously
> superior. What I'm saying is the 3.6 zoom is sharper than
> almost all of the varieties of non-macro 50mm lenses.
>
> 30 years ago, they weren't able to mold plastic with the incredible
> repeatablity they can now. I've read that it means that means that
> centering elements is now automatic and precise and in the old days it
> wasn't. On top of that, Oly didn't use ED glass much and I don't
> think they ever used a single aspheric element. If I recall my
> history, in 1972, they didn't even have machine tools to grind an
> aspherical element. For the price of a color tv, you get a vastly
> better lens today than 30 years ago.
>
> Then there are the automation advances, the most impressive to me
> being auto-balancing, variable fill-flash on a dial!
>
> Don asked,
> >Why have no other manufacturers come up with it?>
>
>
> Well, they have. See the reputation of the Tamron 80-200 SP f/2.8 and
> those 35-105 and 28-105 jobs. As I read it, there's also an element
> of framing the latest and greatest Oly as well, the latest and
> greatest. What would you say if someone refused to by an OM unless it
> took his Pen lenses? It's kinda beside the point to the marketing
> guys so they answer you with the selling points again, and again, and
> again, until you either buy or you step away from the counter. That's
> their place on the food chain. :)
>
> Lama
>
>
=====
Don Shedrick
http://groups.msn.com/firstlightimaging
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|