On May 8, 2004, at 10:03 AM, Garry Lewis wrote:
> The results~~
> 1. Nikkor 50mm H.C. F/2. (all individual UPS lines were seen, but
> contrast
> was a little flat)
> 2 Olympus 50mm F/1.8. ( only large lines were seen individually, but
> contrast was the best of the three lenses)
> 3. Minolta 50mm md F/1.8. ( only large lines were detectable, but only
> because of tonal changes. Contrast was about the same as the Nikkor)
>
> a 50 year old lens beat out my Olympus that at least beat out the
> Minolta-
> now what?
>
> 1.Retest?
> 2. CLA the Leica and buy more 50 year old lenses?
> 3 Upgrade my Olympus 50mm lens?
> 4. Give up?
Garry,
A couple of thoughts. The Nikkor lens is a competitor with the Leitz
Summicron which was a very expensive, very sharp lens. The Nikkor was a
little cheaper and a little better than the Leica. It made Nikon's
reputation and launched it into the big time.
The Oly and the Minolta are cheap kit lenses designed to keep the cost
of the camera & lens to the lowest possible point. State of the art
lens, even 50 years old, beats cheap lens that is 25-30 years old. No
big surprise.
The Oly 1.8 were variable. A late model, with the "Made in Japan" log
on the lens ring is supposed to be quite a good lens. A late model 1.4
with serial number over 1 million is even a bit better imagewise and is
more robustly built. The Oly 50/2.0 Macro is amazing as is considered
to be as good or better than a Summicron. Do #2 and #3.
Winsor
Long Beach, California
USA
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"
|