edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
><>
>What has been interesting is the number of people who have listed the 50 f1.4
>as a favourite. Now that I have one I'll have to give it a real workout.
>
One of my pet peeves is generic preformance references to the 50/1.4 and
50/1.8. If you look at Gary's tests, you will see huge differences
between early and late versions. Beyond that, Gary privately tested a
very early 50/1.4 with radioactive glass. He found it quite sharp in the
center, better than later SCs and close to the MC versions, but softer
at the edges than the MC versions. My very early 50/1.8 isn't a very
sharp or contrasty lens, but the last versions of the 1.8 are excellent.
>Earl
>
>fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
><>
>
> 3. Nikkor 43~86 - didn't like it either.
This went through 2 or 3 versions, never great, but the first was pretty
poor.
> 4. Nikkor 50mm/1.4 was better than my G.Zuiko.
See Above. Nikk*r 50/1.4 also went through design/performance evolution,
still is in AF versions.
Moose
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|