>Probably true -- during the same years, lens design went from a craft
>done by "old masters" types to a CAD-assisted process done by engineers.
I'd like to know more precisely, if possible, which years this shift
occurred.
>there's such a thing as getting too hung up
>on the numbers, I think. If photography was merely about pulling lines
>per millimeter, what a boring tedium it would be !
I agree in principle, but with my interest in astrophotography, I find I
ignore the grades, the stats, and the numbers at my own risk--one of the
reasons I'm so grateful for Reese's careful testing. Photographing points
of light on a dark background is an extreme test for any lens (comparable
to the cat-fur idiom currently afoot in this list) and I have found a
number of lenses that are not up to the task. In my experience, the
"numbers" are a good guide to which lenses will perform well at night,
and which will fall flat on their diaphrams. (My only wish is for even
more in-depth testing of the entire inbred family of common aberrations,
but I think Gary is burdened enough.) Numeric evaluations may not be so
important to the majority who photograph in the light of the nearest
star, but I can show you some unambiguously miserable, hideous, shameful
failures that have been caused by the wanton misbending of distant
starlight. Case in point--I never knew the true nature of my docile
50/1.4 until it viciously attacked several images I was taking of star
fields. At the corners of the frame were not pinpricks of light, but
seagull-shaped red-blue blobs! (Or UFOs?) My 100/2 on the other hand
always behaves like a thoroughbred, even when galloping wide open. So I
ask your indulgence to let me (and my ilk) be unreasonably fretful, picky
and superstitious. I hope our snits don't annoy, but this stuff is
*important* to some of us--I for one truly dislike wasting a night's
hard-won imaging on a turncoat lens.
On another subject: I've had a couple off-list & one online request to
explain my oblique remark re the 180/2.8 (which I had couched carefully
so as not to alienate myself). Again, this is from an astrophot's point
of view, so please adjust your judgments accordingly. I read an article
sometime between 1991 and 1997 (in perhaps an astronomy mag?) comparing,
I believe, 5 or 6 fast prime lenses in the 180-200 range. Nikon, Canon,
and Zuiko among others. The Zuiko 180/2.8 registered dead last. (Relax,
Giles, the 180/2 was not tested). I should have clipped the article but
it was a library copy and my conscience got the best of me. Perhaps
someone can unearth this article and prove me a liar.
< 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 >
|