> > I've been told the 180 f2.8 is not so good > > Hum, I was just told by Olympus America this was one of NASA's picks as the > best of its breed. NASA selected the 180mm f2.0, not the f2.8. The 2.0 was the best off all lenses they tested. Paul.
|
| Subject: | [OM] 180mm and Nasa |
|---|---|
| From: | "Paul Van Gossum" <paul.vangossum@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 29 Oct 1998 14:07:27 +0100 |
> > I've been told the 180 f2.8 is not so good > > Hum, I was just told by Olympus America this was one of NASA's picks as the > best of its breed. NASA selected the 180mm f2.0, not the f2.8. The 2.0 was the best off all lenses they tested. Paul.
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: [OM] T and FP sync, Wayne Harridge |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [OM] Lens Coatings List, Mikael von Numers |
| Previous by Thread: | 180mm f2.8 (was Re: [OM] 300 mm 4.5), Clive Warren |
| Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Natianal Geographic - was 300 mm 4.5, cpl49 |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
