The "lower correction" is my lack of proper optical vocabulary. The comment
is a generalization based on the lens tests as cited at
http://www.astro.wellesley.edu/lhawkins/photo/zuiko50.txt. In particular,
both 1:1,4 lenses show "mild barrel distortion" in the tester's comments.
Neither 1:1,8 lens has that comment. The tester remarks "very low
distortion" for those versions. The 1:1,4 probably has *more* correction,
but also has greater barrel distortion. The 1:1,8 generally shows slightly
better, or equal, resolution at a given f/ratio.
I agree both lenses are state of the art. I'll never part with my old SC
1:1,4, even though there is an f/2 macro right beside it.
John P
______________________________________
there is no "never" - just long periods of "not yet".
there is no "always" - just long periods of "so far"
Matthias Wilke <Matthias.K.Wilke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>as I pointed out in one of my recent messages, I have a high opinion about
>the Zuiko 50mm 1:1,8 lens. But now I am wondering about the meaning, that
>the 50mm 1:1,4 lens has a lower correction. In my experience, the both
>lenses are in spite of the fact, that the latter is almost twice as fast as
>the first, optical equivalent. So the correction of the brighter lens can't
>be lower. I believe that both standard lens versions are state of the art,
>even my very old chromium ring 1:1,4 lens. Try to look at the picture plane
>with a workshop microscope and you will believe it.
< 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 >
|