Richard and I wrote (all mixed up here)
> > > I mean the Zuiko 40/2 is known to be an OK but not a stellar performer?
> >
> >It shows up pretty well in Gary's tests with the OM4T & prefire. A and A+ at
> >smaller apertures. That's about as good as it gets. And it has 4 of the 6
> >elements are special low-dispersion glass.
>
> But C/C+ at /2? That's the point of getting a /2, isn't it? Lets see..., at /2
> 21/2 .... B+/C 24/2 .... C+ / C w/ mirror up, prefire... 28/2 .... B / B 35/2
> .... B, and C- at corner 40/2 .... C / C 50/2 .... C / C <-- wow! That low?
> 85/2
> .... C+ / C+ --- B+/B- w/ mirror up, prefire 90/2 .... B+ / A <-- whee, no
> wonder it's so good :-) 100/2 ... C+/ C+ 180/2 ... A/ A- <-- WOW! 250/2 ... A
> /
> B+ <-- wow!
>
> OK, so I was assuming incorrectly that at wide opened, the performance will
> not
> be generally much worse than /2.8, /4, but looks like Cs are the norm, or
> average, or is it "mean"? Arrghh...
I agree, you have a point.
For a while I read some Leica group material (can't remember where ) and
they made the point that Leica lenses were intended to be good at their
widest aperture. I don't know if they actually turned out that way, but the
goal
was there, and it seems a good idea. After all, what's the point of having a
fast lens if the resolution wide open is so bad nobody wants to use it?
I did make some crucial shots with my 40/2 last year, f/4 because of low-
light, and am a little disappointed with the definition; however I had no
option
but to hand-hold at 1/30 sec, on Ektar 25 asa. Compromises all round there.
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 >
|