Winsor wrote
> And in practice does this make a difference? Seems like the tiny
> difference due to thermal expansion would be well within the depth of
> field.
> Winsor Crosby
> Long Beach, California
Yes, Winsor, it does. It is a bit of a struggle to get a good or better image
with the 300 anyway. It has a very small DOF, and the difference in lens
length (and resultant effect on accuracy of focus) really is enough to
significantly affect image quality (both sharpness and contrast) as the lens
delivers an out-of-focus image. In my limited experience, the sort of
difference as between "Hey, what went wrong with that shot" and "Hey, that's
nice!" I'm sure that's why Olympus designed the lens over-focussing that
way.
I have just discovered that my 35~105 Zuiko has inconsistent infinity
focussing, and now I check it really carefully. The 100 f/2 requires *very*
careful focussing and other use aspects, or the results are quite
disappointing, especially for such an expensive lens (for my pocket).
I didn't get this gear just to take snapshots. The family do that with a *focus-
free* camera which surprises me on how good it sometimes is. I try to do
better.
Brian
< 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 >
|