In your message dated: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 08:47:22 CST you write:
>At 12:00 AM 3/10/98 EST, Gary Reese wrote in part:
>
>>The 50 mm f/1.4 has always tested out as underperformer versus the major
>>competitors. If possible, go with a 50 mm f/1.2 as it is a significantly
>>better performer. The 50 mm f/1.8 remains a cost/performance bargain, though
>.
>>
>>For some performance tests, see the OLY FAQ.
>>
>
>Thanks for your response, Gary.
>
>I'm confused about one thing. I've got a hard copy of the FAQ in front of
>me, and it suggests that the 1.4 is optically VG-EXC and a little steadier
>than the 1.8. There is no mention of the 1.2. (These are all based on Modern
>Photography tests from 10-25 years ago.) Is there a different or additional
>FAQ? The one I'm referencing is R. Lee Hawkins' at
>
> http://math.lio.se/~behal/photo/FAQOlympus_OM_SLR
That is most likely an ancient version of the FAQ. Try:
http://www.astru.wellesley.edu/lhawkins/photo/photo.shtml
It still doesn't mention the 50/1.2, tho (anyone got those test
results?)
Cheers,
--Lee
############################################################
| 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
############################################################
|