My 55mm f1.2 (silvernose) must be the oldest lens I have. It looks so good
on a black OM 2 (just like the advertising in the brochures) that I can't
bare to part with it. It takes great pictures too.
Interestingly, after I heard the radioactive story about these older lenses
I examined the lens closely for any fungus. None whatsoever... maybe the
radioactivity protects the lens elements from microorganism growth?
Does anyone else with a radioactive lens have any fungus on the glass of
that lens??
Oben
----- Original Message -----
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Gary's lens test...
> 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|