Per Nordenberg wrote:
>
> George M quoted from the IS-3 lens test in Pop Photo:
> >" A combination of conventional focussing (moving the front group)> plus
> >internal focussing helps the lens obtain a high level of sharpness.
> >This sharpness is held thruout the zoom range...."
> >
> >"But what really makes this zoom shine is the fact that it is not a true
> >zoom, but rather a 'varifocal' lens- one in which the focus shifts as
> >you zoom."
>
> Do they mean that it is an advantage to have a varifocal zoom lens in
> an AF camera rather than a true zoom?
In the IS-3's case, yes. Here's the next sentence: "Because the lens is
permanently attached to the body, complex electro-mechanical systems
could be installed which continuously refocus the lens as the zoom
control is pressed."
>
> >"...we wanted to know why this lens outperformed so many others in our
> >SQF tests ... Olympus designers realized that the unique appeal of the
> >IS-3 would be linked to higher than average image quality. As one of
> >the IS-3s designers told us 'the lens on the IS-3 must outperform most
> >35mm lenses.' ... it would appear Olympus has achieved that goal."
> >
> >"The lens, as the centerpiece of the camera, again reveals the multiple
> >personalities of the IS-3. The lens ... is an outstanding performer.
> >We were especially impressed with the very low flare exhibited ...
> >without a hood no less.
>
> I think most of us would agree that there are two Zuiko zooms that are
> in a class of their own - the 35-80/2.8 (of course) and the
> 35-105/3.5~4.5. Maybe we now can add a third zoom to this performance
> class, namely the 35-180/4.5~5.6 zoom of the IS-3(000)? Although not
> being labelled "Zuiko" it is still a zoom lens that was developed and
> is being manufactured by Olympus alone, something which cannot be said
> about the two Cosina made OM2000 zooms despite their being labelled
> "Zuiko".
Sounds good to me! At some point, I plan to own the 35-80/2.8 as well.
I'm sorry I passed up a mint used one at $700 last year.
>
> >In the field: Test slides sharp and contrasty; ... flare remarkably well
> >controlled at 35 and 85. With the (28 and 300mm) converters there was
> >some loss of quality. The 28 held up well in the center but was soft at
> >the edges at all apertures. The 300mm had even sharpness center-edge,
> >but showed slightly less image contrast.
>
> Please excuse my ignorance, but what is meant by "the 300 mm had even
> sharpness center-edge"? Is it not common that zooms are sharp in the
> center?
Yes, what they were saying I believe is that the sharpness extended to
the edge as well. They were quite enthusiastic about the 300 lens.
They also said:
"Results with the 300mm converter were better than some regular 300mm
teles!"
They did complain, however, about the 'clunkiness' of putting it
on/off. I don't have one, but when I look at the photo of the IS-3 with
one mounted I wonder: 1) How the internal lens mechanics can hold up to
this extra weight on the end and 2) whether you could use it on a tripod
without supporting the end of the lens.
George
>
> Per Nordenberg
> Kolmården, Sweden
>
> < 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 >
< 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 >
|