At 12:37 PM 4/20/99 EDT, you wrote:
>Joel writes:
>
>> It's very hard to interpret Gary's
>> lens tests, which make it look like the more beat up and SC the example,
>> the better it is!
>
>The three 85mm f/2 tests were done in three different evaluative viewing
>sessions. Remember that significant differences are across full letter
>grades only. Someday I'll put the three test sets in the projector at the
>same time and in their aperture sequence. Then I'll be able to do better at
>differentiating them.
>
>Gary
>
Gee Gary, out of context my quoted comment sure looks like a cheap shot! I
apologize. I certainly didn't mean it that way and, as I've told you
privately, I spend a lot of time on your site. I'm glad you indicated in
your comments that the statement was made *only* in reference to the 85/2
tests, and *not* in a global way about all the tests.
With your 85/2 tests it's hard not to wonder about sample variance, but I
certainly don't take any comfort in the notion of sample variance, and
furthermore my own experience with my MC 85/2 jibe with your tests. I
wonder if Olympus did not intentionally "improve" the lens when it went to
MC production by tuning it to the F4-8 stops, which are so useful for
hand-held portraiture. This is certainly the range and the activity where
I appreciate this lens the most, and your tests do seem to bear this out.
The weight and feel of this lens are also not quantifiable but contribute
to the confidence I have in it for handheld shooting. One can't really do
a very good test for "sharpness when handheld," but that's exactly what I
like about it.
Joel
< 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 >
|