Thanks david for the article - great work.
Where does this persistent myth - that fast lenses are no better or
inferior to their slower cousins - originate and why do countless
people continue to promulgate it?
I have previously commented on the belief that the 50mm f1.8 is
superior to the 1.4 or 1.2. The figures Shaun Weber provided some
time back certainly do not support that one.
I also recall a post some time back where it was pointed out that
optical theory predicts better performance with increased aperture.
the 21,24,28 and 35mm f2 lenses - from memory - all have floating
elements for close focus correction. The 28mm and 35mm f2s in
particular repeatedly receive the highest praise for acuity,
contrast, lack of distortion etc.
The 50mm f1.2 is arguably the best of the non-macro 50mm lenses. On
that note, I have seen very favourable opinions of the 50mm f2 macro
also with nothing to infer that it is any way lacking compared to
the famous f3.5 macro.
I have never seen a bad opinion on the 100mm f2, 90mm f2 macro, 180mm
f2, 250mm f2, 350mm f2.8 or 30-80 f2.8 zoom.
One other thing I think should be considered, though I am not 1000n
this point at the moment, is that I believe the faster lenses in a
particular focal length also tend to have more diaphragm blades. This
has been correlated with better bokeh characteristics.
All in all I think there are many reasons why one should take a
serious look at the faster Zuikos. I believe there is often more
than just a price differential.
Giles
(ducking for cover) - quack
> David,
>
> Thank you for posting the OM article - a well enjoyed read. It did get me
> thinking though. The author commented -- "My own feeling is that
> whatever the desirability of the fast Zuiko lenses, the standard apertures
> are more likely to have high performance." -- Is that so? I'm considering
> adding a 21mm to my lens range (24mm is the widest so far), and have a
> choice between the f/2.0 and f/3.5. The cost difference is nearly double.
> While that certainly gets my attention, I'd expect comparable sharpness and
> image quality between the two. Is the f/3.5 a superior performer? If so,
> I'll save my $$$ for more film <g>.
>
> John P
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version send mail to: listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list send a message to
| listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions email: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| htttp://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|