Brian O'Connor wrote:
> The XA was fine, ....
There are "tests", which states, that the XA lens is not as sharp as the
Minox lens. Hmm.., I found it sharp enough, just stop down a bit to
avoid the vignetting.
> 1. The 50mm lens in the OM2sp seems softer than the one in the OM1, were
> there any differences in production at different times?
There are at least two diferent optical lens designs, 6/4 and 6/5, there
might be more diferences, because there are 5 diferent part lists.
> The FAQ has a rating of lenses that rates the zuiko 50(1.8)
> as having higher numbers than most other lenses, including a Zeiss Planar
> 50(1.4). My previous 35mm gear was Contax, and I am familiar with the Planar.
> I know mileage varies, but I found the Zeiss to be superb, certainaly much
> better that the Zuiko(at least the two that I have used), and MUCH better
> than the Nikor(50(1.8) AF on a 801) that I have also used.
So much to lens tests, the 2,8 28mm Zuiko got not very good test results
in Germany but I found it a exelent lens, sharp, contrasty and very
resistant to flare and ghosting.
> BTW, I need a short telephoto, and I have seen a Zuiko 200(4) in the window
> of a local shop. Is it sharp? The FAQ rates it lower than the 35-105(3.5-4.5)
> I find this suprising, is it really softer than a zoom?
I own one of this this lenses and I think it´s very sharp lens. I´m
basing this on some architectal shots I´ve done with this lens, with and
without Olympus 2x converter. All pictures were very sharp. I admit, I
had never the chance to compare Zuiko against Zeiss lenses.
Richard
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|