Alan wrote:
Another point of view:
There is much more to image quality then "sharpness" or "resolution".
Some of the zuiko lenses are very good some are not. The only sad thing
is that the poor lenses will never be improved upon (since olympus has
stopped developing the line). While the 50f1.2, 90f2, 250f2 and several
others are truly wonderful lenses - olympus fame is more towards size
then pure optical quality. The zooms tend to be rather poor (esp in the
70-200 range) as well as the telephoto lenses. Anyway, I'll stop here
before someone ties me to a stake and lights a match...
=====================================================================
Alan,
No flames from me! What you say is no more than the truth: some Zuiko
lenses are world-class while others are not. I'd be interested in
seeing a list that distinguishes the best Zuiko lenses from the
"also-rans".
I know Gary Reese's web site contains a heap of test results and I have
often referred to it in the past. However, it takes quite a lot of
concentrated effort to sort out the wheat from the chaff, especially
since some of his tests were not doen under optimium conditions. For
example, the results obtained with OM-2S/OM-4/OM-2000 using mirror and
aperture pre-fire are better than those using the OM-1 with mirror
lock.
A simple rating list would make the choice easier for someone who
doesn't want to have every lens in the Zuiko stable but does want to
select the best that (s)he can afford.
Regards,
=====
Ray
"The trouble with resisting temptation is
you never know when you'll get another chance!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|