Sounds like an interesting comparison test. Since I'm close by, I'd be
happy to lend you a 50/1.8 miJ or two for your tests. I also have a
50/1.4 >1,100,000, the latest formulation. These should certainly be
better lenses than the old SC 1.4. In all fairness, your 1.4 was
designed at least 30 years ago. Of course, even the newer ones are
probably over 10 years old. I also have a Carl Zeiss Jena 'T' coated
50/2.8 Tessar, probably from the 50s, but no P42 to Oly adapter.
Isn't the Contax a 35mm lens? You might also want to compare it to an
Oly 35mm. Unfortunately, I only have the 35/2.8, not the later,
reputedly better, 35/2.
Based on Gary's tests, it seems more than mirror lock-up is needed to
separate lens quality from possible vibration effects. If you don't have
an Oly that does mirror and aperture pre-fire, I have an OM-2000 you
could borrow too.
Moose
Stephen Scharf wrote:
Interesting comments - Do you think the T3's Carl Zeiss' lens is just
way
better than most (Zuiko) lens, or do you think other factors are
involved,
e.g. that it being a point and shoot, it has no mirror and no vibration?
You know, Richard, that's a very good question, and one that will bear
some "scientific" experimentation...
I will look into setting up such an experiment, comparing it to my
50mm f/1.8 (not a Made in Japan one, unfortunately. If someone wants
to loan me one, I will try that out, too) on a tripod and with mirror
lock-up.
< 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 >
|