Supat S. wrote:
>One more thing, why don't Olympus provide those data?
>
I don't know how design is done nowadays. Back when the OM lenses were
designed, Oly did LOTS of picture taking of typical subjects and visual
evaluation of results with prototype lenses. One of the characteristics
of many of the early OM lenses was that they take pictures better than
they test. There are a lot of factors beyond simple resolution and
sharpness that contribute to what the images of real subjects look like
in typical viewing situations. AG's famous silver-nose 100/2.8 is a
great example. My second lens for my first OM-1 was a 100/2.8 from the
serial number range he prefers. Still have it, still like it - but that
35-70 started me on an unstoppable course toward using zooms for most of
my photography.
The earliest 50/1.8s are really not particularly good lenses when tested
for resolution, but they take good looking pictures, as long as you
don't enlarge them too much. I was certainly surprised when I got my
first zoom, the 35-70/3.6, and discovered it was sharper at 50mm than
the 50/1.8 that came with my OM-1. That certainly ran in the face of
conventional wisdom about zooms, particularly back then.
This was back when the Nikk*r 50/2 was WAY better than their 43-86 zoom.
Turned out that the Zuiko zoom was way better than the Nikk*r, it really
was a breakthrough lens at the time, and the Zuiko 50/1.8 didn't catch
up with the equivalent Nikk*rs 'til later.
I suspect Oly was not alone in being troubled when camera magazine tests
started focusing on resolution/contrast charts and it started to become
clear that these tests were affecting sales. Such considerations may
have been behind the subtle reformulations of some primes like the 100/2.8.
The shorter answer is that they don't think simple resolution tests are
a good overall measure of lens quality.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|