C.H. Ling writes:
<< 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. >>
Same here. There were quite significant performance changes through its
evolution, making it a textbook case on Zuiko lens improvements. But
what might surprise folks is that the center resolution & contrast of
the radioactive version is perhaps as high as any Zuiko. It even beats
out the Contax G lenses I just tried on Type II film. Downfall: the
corners are the lowest resolution of any f/1.4 version, although quite
good in contrast. It is the corners on these versions that are most
diagnostic. Each version saw an improvement in resolution of the
corners. Contrast went way down after the radioactive version was
replaced, but was finally matched by the final multicoated version.
Food for thought: If there are no "dogs" among the line-up of Zuiko
lenses, might there be dogs among the versions within the Zuiko lineup?
If so, the 50mm f/1.4 G.Zuiko SC2 (i.e., non-radioactive) is a
candidate. Perhaps we should define a dog as a lens in which you can do
better by selecting an alternative.
An aside: Hey folks, I'm been running my head off doing real photos,
especially moonrises and moonsets, as well as catching the spring bloom
in the Mojave Desert. What each lens is capable of, performance-wise,
is tucked away in the left brain, ready be to called on, if I care.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|