Richard wrote:
>> I believe, that the lens is this good.
>
>I didn´t wanted to question your description, some friends of me had an
>1000mm/10 lenses of the same manufactor and were disapointed about the
>missing contrast and sharpness.
I was not hurt about your question, but the phenomen is that sometimes
(don't know when and why) you get flat pictures with this lens, too. But if
it is possible to achieve such contrasty pictures, the lens should be very
good.
>I found several sources in the web regarding amateur astronmy which
>agreed, that mirror lenses are less contrasty than refractors. Reason
>should be the middle mirror and the limited reflectibility of mirrors
>(90%max). They mentioned also the 1000mm/10 "Russentonnen" (Russian
>-drums,-barrels), the problem of this lenses should be to tight fixing
>of the mirrors and lenses resulting in missadjusted optical systems.
There are simpler versions of 500mm 1:8 and 1000mm 1:10 around. The latter
is often called Russian barrel. I think the real Rubinars are better with
regard to contrast. With my lens no adjustment was necessary.
>It´s remarkable that the refractive lens was just 1/10 stop better, so
>a lot of the light is absorbed in this zooms (or the apertures are not
>correct).
This Tokina contains 15-17 elements, I am not sure. The Rubinar contains
five elements.
Matthias
< 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 >
|