I was confused too, Moose first paragraph read "As I recall, the 20/1.7 has
a rather poor reputation."
Ok, it is very clear now :-)
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Barker" <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Moose
>
> Sorry, it was probably the way I read it, but if you look at your post's
> first paragraph you will see that you write that DPR was underwhelmed by
> the lens.
>
> Later in that post you wrote that bit below, contradicting yourself.
>
> Chris
>
> On 30 Dec 2012, at 10:15, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 12/29/2012 11:05 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>>> Moose's post was a little confusing on the reputation of the 20/1.7.
>>> When I had one with my GF1, then E-PL2, it worked extremely well.
>>
>> I thought it was clear. All other folks opinions and tests; they say:
>>
>> Oly 17/2.8 = OK, but nothing to write home about. Sharp center, softening
>> rapidly with radial distance.
>> Panny 20/1.7 = excellent
>> Oly 17/1.7 = likely excellent
>>
>> Clear Now Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|