Hey Stuart Bobb,
If you really want my "take", I'd use it for now but replace it with the
best quality lens I could find. That is if it's a lens you actually use.
I'm not telling you what to do, but consider my experience with a 28 that I
wrote about 6 months ago. I just couldn't focus the thing as it seemed as
though it NEVER was in focus. It was a f/3.5 but it wasn't the max aperture
that was the problem. It just wasn't a sharp lens. (I centered the focus
in within the range of uncertianty and stopped down to f/8, where the
maximum sharpness happens.)
I lucked into a user copy of the hideously expensive Zuiko 28 f2 from a
lister and it made all the difference. The fast Zuikos are generally
sharper than the slower ones. Look at the number of elements in the faster
lenses vs. the number of elements in the slower ones. More elements means
it's better corrected, generally, right folks? (Except for the 50 1.2,
right?)
Best example I can give of my take that "elements means sharpness" is that
I'm not really happy with the sharpness of my Zuiko 200 f4, which has only 5
elements. From my list reading, the sharpest lens in the system may be the
90mm which has.... (wait for it.....) NINE ELEMENTS!! This is a fixed focal
length lens (prime) with 9 elements.
We're not using point and shoots because we're into quality, right?
My two cents,
Jim
a) Don't worry about it. The depth of field on a 24mm is so huge when
focusing at anything more than 10 feet away you'll never see a problem on
the film
AND
b) This is bad, bad, bad! Try to return it, junk it, whatever. Here are 8
ways it is going to someday ruin that great shot of <whatever>
< 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 >
|