The Zuiko 24mm F/2.8 is a much better lens than that old Nikkor.It
should be since it was designed later and is a newer generation in
retrofocus wideangles.BTW I have owned both Nikkor and Zuiko 24mm F2.8
lenses.I think the Nikkor was sharper and/or contrastier than the Zuiko
by a tad.The Nikkor had an interesting golf tee shaped flare whenever it
was pointed at the sun.I liked both lenses a lot but that old Nikkor 28
F/3.5 from the 1960's is a real dog.Perhaps it snuck through the quality
control and is not typical.
-Gene
*- DORIS FANG -* wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Gene Mayeda wrote:
>
> > The ancient Nikkor 28mm F/3.5 I found in the camera cabinet at work
> > is,in my opinion, a real dog unless you like seeing softness in your
> > edges and a sharp center.This is with 3 1/2" X 5" prints.I can't
> > remember what F stop I used but I found the lens to be unacceptable.
> > -Gene
>
> There are many versions of this lens over the years, but you make the
> point perfectly: One person's "unacceptable" lens may work very well for
> another. I like it better for color work than my 28/2.0 Nikkor! My pet
> 24/2.8 Zuiko would probably fall under the same categorizing (too much
> flare), but it works for me.
> *= Doris Fang =*
>
>
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|