On Tue, 14 Dec 1999 12:21:17 -0800 (PST), Joseph wrote:
>==============
>On that we disagree. Remember that Gary cautions againt interpreting
>his results as significant on partial grade levels. A B- lens may nor
>be presumed to be inferior to a B+ lens
>==============
>
>Actually, here we agree. You can't state anything definitive about lenses
>that are close in such data. But you can't say they are equal in performance
>either just because the data show a gap that is within some bound, which was
>your original claim.
If all I had to go on was Gary's test results, that argument might
stand, but as mentioned previously, my opinion of the 200/5 is also
based on my own testing, my own use, and reports from subscribers on
this list. You might want to review the archives for more info.
In fact, they could just as easily be farther apart than
>the data show, as closer than the data show. My own testing results of both
>the 200/4 (MC) and 200/5 (MC) were that the 200/4 was clearly better, and
>Gary's data corroborates that. Thus, I will tend to place a little
>higher significance in Gary's results on these two lenses than someone
>who hasn't tested both lenses themselves.
As noted previously, I have personally tested, owned, and used both
lenses. Until recently, I owned and used the 200/4, 200/5, and
180/2.8. However my own testing, combined with user reports here and
Gary's testing, indicated that having both the 200/4 and 200/5 was
redundant, so I sold my 200/4. I couldn't be happier with the 200/5,
and I still have the 180/2.8 for ocasions when speed is an issue.
BBB
-
B.B. Bean - Have horn, will travel
bbbean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peach Orchard, MO
http://www.beancotton.com/bbbean.shtml
< 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 >
|