John,
I guess many of us have 24/2.8's. How does one identify which is the younger
and older types. Did the problem end with a particular serial number?
regards
Trevor J. Noble
----- Original Message -----
From: John Hermanson <omtech@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 07 March 2000 17:30
Subject: Re: [OM] 24 mm lens again
> There are two versions of the 24/2.8. The oldest type "had" a problem
with
> separating elements in the rear of the lens. These parts are long gone,
and
> new version elements do not fit. This may be why you're having a sharpness
> problem.
>
> John Hermanson
> ___________________________________
> Camtech, Olympus Service since 1977.
> 21 South Ln. Huntington NY 11743-4714
> 631-424-2121 http://www.zuiko.com
> Free Olympus Manuals: 1-800-221-3000
> ___________________________________
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <atk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 7:55 AM
> Subject: [OM] 24 mm lens again
>
>
> >
> > Hum -- yesterday I sent a message about a 24mm lens I 'tested'. I guess
I
> > asked the question in the wrong way -- what I had asked was
> > "should I keep this lens" - I should have asked "Why aren't my pictures
> sharp."
> >
> > Is it my technique, the lens, the film, developer or expectation. For
> example
> > I took a picture of the washington monument (actually several) but one
was
> > from several thousand feet away (so it occupies about 1/10th to 1/15th
> > the vertical frame). In this picture the focus was infinity -- it was at
> f/8 at
> > 1/500 of a second. As a 'snap' shot (4x6 print) I would have expected it
> to be
> > crystal sharp -- it wasn't. Now I can't figure out why. Note this wasn't
a
> zoom
> > and crop -- it was just a 4x6 that the 1hour lab produced that I was
> looking
> > at.
> >
> > In another shot -- I took a picture of an ambulance. It covers about 1/2
> to 1/3
> > of the frame. I can't read the logo on the driver side. Shouldn't I be
> able to?
> >
> > Pictures of things near (approx 1 to 20 feet) look sharp (i.e., I find
the
> > 4x6 print pleasing -- not sure they would look as nice as an 8x10).
> >
> > Are my expecation too high for colour film ? Is the lens soft ? Is kodak
> gold
> > 200 and 100 just not capable of producing the sort of image i'm looking
> for ?
> > Do 1 hour photo just do a lousy job of developing the film (grain was
rath
> er
> > ughly -- I know in b&w many photo shops produced yucky grain vs home
> > developing)
> >
> > The picture was printed using that new digital to photo paper process
ritz
> > uses. Could that be the reason the images are soft? I looked at the
> negatives
> > but it was hard to tell with the loop they had. I have a nicer loop but
it
> > is at my parents house many days away.
> >
> > By golly someone here must know the answer!! I sure don't.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > < 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 >
> >
> >
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|