Warren,
Thanks for the tip on the Sigma 16. I can believe its sharp . The 8mm Sigma
with OM mount I bought 12 years ago is an excellent performer, and was dirt
cheap to boot....but won't work on my OM4 Ti bodies. So I keep my OM1 for
that.
At 02:35 PM 12/13/99 -0500, you wrote:
>In a message dated Mon, 13 Dec 1999 1:56:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Kurt Hurley <khurley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> WKato,
>>
>> Is this the Nikon data for Zuiko/Nikon comparison on the older, smaller
>> Nikkor 16/3.5 or the 16/2.8 AIS. My own data indicates the Zuiko 16/3.5 is
>> dramatically sharper than the Nikkor AIS16/2.8 wide open and f/8......The
>> effective aperture of the 16/2.8 AIS Nikkor was actually around 3.5.
>>
>Yes, this is the older 16/3.5 that I was comparing. It's amazing that a
company would go backward in their design. Maybe it was much more
economical to produce, indicating that bean counters run many companies.
>
>I was also looking at an old Sigma 16/3.5 that was tested by Modern Photo.
It was even sharper than either Nikon or Zuiko. I saw one for about $250 a
year ago. Maybe I should have picked it up.
>
>Warren
>
>< 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 >
>
Kurt Hurley IDS 2000 Product Marketing Manager
Schlumberger T&T - Diagnostic Systems
1601 Technology Drive San Jose CA 95110
email khurley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PH 408-437-5156 FAX 408-437-9031 PG 408-699-4587
< 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 >
|