My comment part two:
I had performed a test around 10 years ago with Velvia and yes I have
used flash, may be I'll try to find out the slides later this week and
post some microscope view of them. But at that time I only have
limited Zuikos, 16/3.5, 24/2, 28/2, 35/2, 28-48, 35-105, 50/1.4SC,
50/3.5, 85/2, 135/2.8, 200/4, 300/4.5. I found the 50/3.5 has the
highest resolution.
For me even with Fuji 200 film and one hour lab processing, I
consistently found the print from my 21/2, 35-70/3.6, 100/2 and
180/2.8 has higher resolution than some other Zuikos (and some Zuikos
I used very little so I can't comment). I can also distinguish the
different in performance of various version of 50/1.4, of course I had
use a 10x magnifier to examine the prints. So I can't agree a cheap
lens can get a A+ unless you have a very loose standard.
C.H.Ling
Erwin Voogt wrote:
>
> This brings me to another thing that amazes me: why not use a flash to
> eliminate all vibrations? My own tests using Kodachrome 25 and a flash
> showed that at F5.6 all my lenses reach the sharpness of the grain of the
> K25, at the corner of the images. It was simply not possible for me to
> notice an increase in sharpness from that point with all my lenses (primes
> and zooms). I used a Leitz Colorplan 90/2.5 to project the images on a
> smooth white screen. You need this to see the extremely fine grain of the
> K25.
> This is consistent with the calculated resolution of the lens and the film
> combined. Even a K25 is not much sharper than about 125 lines per
> millimetre. In this graph you will see that the influence of the lens on the
> combined resolution is limited. (Note: contrast is a different story, but
> again: films, hoods and filters have probably more influence on the contrast
> than the lens!) http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/photovoogt/pix/lensfilm.gif
> (The graph shows curves for films with a resolution of 50 to 150 lines per
> millimetre. I used the following formula: (1/combined)^2 = (1/film)^2 +
> (1/lens)^2. This should be quite close to reality.)
>
> Summarised:
> - On a commercial film even cheap lenses should reach an A+ level at F5.6.
> - Lower ratings at F5.6 - F11 must be caused by external factors.
> - Since the SQF rating shows many B's at F8, the influence of external
> factors
> in the tests is in my opinion very large. I even think it is not possible
> to
> draw conclusions on trends like "the F2's are better than the F2.8's".
>
> My conclusion:
> Every Zuiko is an excellent lens.
> Just take pictures instead of waisting time on discussing which Zuiko
> performs better than the other!
>
> OK, now I will be running for my life...
>
> Bye,
>
> Erwin Voogt
> Utrecht, The Netherlands
> http://members.ncbi.com/_XMCM/photovoogt/index.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 >
|
