Maybe consider the source too? I used to buy a lot of records based on
reviews in the Penguin Guide to Stereo Recordings. After a while I
marveled at how many recordings with British orchestras and conductors I
had.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
At 03:47 PM 9/3/2000 GMT, you wrote:
>Just goes to show how much subjectivity is involved in our "personal
>ratings" (i.e., opinions) of lenses.
>
>Lex
>===
>
>>From: Ilona Lemieux <lmx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Subject: [OM] 35-70 2.8, 350 2.8 tests
>>Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 05:14:37 -0400
>>
>>The september issue of the german "color foto" lists lens test results
>>going back 10 years, or so.
>>
>>Seems the much lusted after 35-80 2.8 didn't hold up too well compared with
>>3 Leicas and a Zeiss, in spite of costing more than all but one...In fact,
>>of the 5 manual focus standard zooms tested, it did worst. What
>>gives?...Interesting is that those seldom lusted after AF Zuik zooms have
>>pretty
>>decent tests scores.
>>
>>You can order from color foto the test magazine issues per email:
>>
>>bestellservice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>frank, berlin
>>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>http://profiles.msn.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 >
|