Yes! but unfortunately I think I had the non radioactive version
50/1.4 with S/N 3xx,xxx. The performance was quite poor wide open and
seem best at f2.8 or 4, strange. But I think the Zuiko 55/1.2 I had
could be the highest resolution Zuiko I have ever seen, but the
yellowish color cast was so bad that I finally sold the lens, nothing
can be perfect.
C.H.Ling
Gary Reese wrote:
>
> 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.
> 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 >
|