At 11:55 AM 6/11/99 +0200, Angel you wrote in part:
>
>>
>> I shoot usually with the OM 4. From this perspective and kwnowing the new
>> test of the 200 f 4 I think (like in the past) that this is a good lens.
>> But, what must I think about the 200 f 5, 180 2.8, 75-150, etc? I guess
>> that theese lenses will give better results with the new test on the OM
>4.
>>
>> Gary, I know this big work an the rest of lenses waiting for test, but do
>> you think to try the parallels tests on the OM 4 with theese lenses ?
>Now
>> I don´t know what to think about the 200 f 5, 180 f2.8, etc when I read
>the
>> actual test on the OM 1.
Hi Angel,
Gary can speak for himself, of course, but I think the problems with the
OM-1 and 200/f4 could arise from a number of possibilities:
1) OM-1 and 200/f4 needs additional support such as the Bogen telephoto
lens support. I have tested this combination and feel it produces
satisfactory results; Gary has not yet done so and his tests are more
rigorous and refined than mine. His test with the OM-4 and TLS show that
the 200/f4 is OK but not whether it is the OM-4 of the TLS that makes the
difference.
2) Some OM-1's may work better (more smoothly and/or quietly and/or without
vibration) after overhaul; I have sent Gary my recently overhauled OM-1 to
test so we may in part see the evidence of this one way or another.
3) It is not certain that an OM-1 with mirror locked up reduces apparent
shutter/aperture vibration; it could be the case that the OM-1 was
designed to make mirror movement/aperture stopdown/shutter movement all to
have a nullifying effect en toto.
One does wonder about the relatively poor showing of the 75-150 at the 150
setting in Gary's tests. I think a really good way to quell one's concerns
about a lot of this stuff is to shoot a few frames of slide film (in your
case with your OM-4) and see if you really feel like the results are "bad."
I get better results with the OM system (including the OM-1) than with any
35mm system I've ever used. In my normal cycle of photography (shooting,
developing, scanning, printing) I am sure that I cannot appreciate the
refinement of information Gary is giving us about resolution and possibly
contrast. The difference between a "B" lens and an "A" lens in Gary's
tests cannot possibly make as much difference in my personal results as my
own successes and failures in focusing, for example.
I hope I don't seem to be advocating a "know nothing" attitude. My own
tests done in relation to Gary's tests have really helped me to appreciate
how fine his tests are and how good our lenses are.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< 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 >
|