I'm not sure what S/N Gary used for the test. I had a SC with S/N 3xx,xxx
which is very poor wide open, but another SC with 5xx,xxx is very good,
comparable to my MC of S/N >1M. It even seems to be sharper at the center
when wide open. The one with S/N 3xx,xxx is differ from the 5xx,xxx in
optical construction, while the 5xx,xxx looks to be the same as the one with
S/N >1M.
C.H.Ling
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Moth <ray_moth@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Olympus Mailing List <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 2:11 PM
Subject: [OM] Quality of Zuiko single coated 50/1.4
>Dear all,
>
>I'd be interested to learn of people's experience with Zuiko single
>coated (SC) 50/1.4 lenses. I bought one recently; it was a bit tatty,
>with a (removable) thumb print on the rear element and a loose rubber
>focus grip, which I glued in place. Mechanically and optically it
>appears undamaged. Serial number is 6xxx,xxx so it's definitely SC.
>
>I haven't used it much yet, so I don't have enough results to be able
>to judge its performance for myself, but I'm beginning to regret buying
>it after seeing Gary Reese's test results: the performance of this lens
>seems to be less than respectable. I quote the information below from
>Gary's site, with apologies to Gary, to save people having to look it
>up for themselves:
>
>50mm f/1.4 Zuiko (single-coated)
>OM-1 with mirror lockup
>Vignetting = C
>Distortion = slight pincushion
>Aperture Center Corner
>f/1.4 D C-
>f/2 C- C
>f/2.8 C B-
>f/4 B- B
>f/5.6 B B
>f/8 B+ B
>f/11 A- B
>f/16 A- B+
>
>Gary says:
>
>D = "Smudged" with obvious image defects in even small degrees of
>enlargement, not suitable for most users (only 3.5x5").
>C = "Soft" images that cannot withstand much enlargement - suitable for
>snapshot quality images (5x7").
>
>The resolution of the SC model seems to be acceptable only at f/4 or
>smaller, with pincussion distortion to boot! People buy is lens for
>low-light photography, which means the performance wide open is
>particularly important - otherwise, they might just as well buy the
>50/1.8 and save money. I am amazed that Olympus could have marketed
>such a poor lens as the SC 1.4. I should say that, in comparison, the
>more modern MC model seems excellent from Gary's test: all A and B
>ratings and no distortion.
>
>I know the usual wisdom is: "Don't worry - the differences bewtween SC
>and MC aren't that great." However, in this case it would appear that
>they are very significant. So, has anyone any comments?
>
>Regards,
>
>
>=====
>Ray
>
>"The trouble with resisting temptation is
> you never know when you'll get another chance!"
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get Yahoo! Mail ? Free email you can access from anywhere!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
>< 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 >
|