At 19:07 12/03/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Would like any comments about the above lens...ref image quality,
>resolution, distortion, flare, etc. Thanks --Greg
>
Short-lived UK magazine Creative Photography tested this lens in their Feb
82 issue. It was up against:
Canon f/1.2 50mm
Canon f/1.2 50mm L
Konica Hexanon f/1.2 57mm
Leitz Noctilux f/1.0 50mm
Minolta Rokkor f/1.2 50mm
Nikon Nikkor f/1.2 50mm
Nikon Noct-Nikkor f/1.2 58mm
Pentax f/1.2 50mm
The article includes MTF readings and actual results of photographing test
targets with each lens.
Here is the conclusion:
"The Olympus Zuiko acquitted itself staggeringly well and can be thoroughly
recommended; so can the Konica hexanon and the Minolta Rokkor. Of all the
lenses the Minolta optic was the cheapest by far and thus extremely good
value; it was also the smallest optic and the second lightest, the Canon
and Olympus coming equal first at 310g compared to the Rokkor's 315gm. But
the assembly tolerances and decentering of the Rokkor were also the worst,
making one wonder what the potential performance would be if a better
sample had been tested. The Pentax, with virtually no fault in assembly,
is performing close to its optimum and maximum potential but still not
reaching the Minolta's figures. The Olympus lens appears to be a superb
design and pretty well made too, and for general picture taking is the pick
of a good bunch."
Curiously, in the accompanying ratings chart, for "overall value" only the
Pentax gest five stars, the Zuiko getting four along with all the others
bar the Canon L and the Konica.
CP tested standard and fast standard lenses, short (100mm) telephotos,
35-70 zooms and 28mm wides. In all these tests the Zuikos were well up the
ratings apart from the 100/2.8 - the tested sample was badly assembled, but
described as "potentially a superb lens".
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 >
|