>>it seems that the 28/3.5 depended on whether you got a good
>>lens or a bad lens. Gary's first test of it showed terrible
>>results, but his subsequent test showed it to be better than
>>his test of the 28/2.8. Variability!
>
>Read read why I tested two 28mm f/3.5 lenses. The second test
>was an attempt to see what a filter ring ding would cause in
>terms of lens performance. I think you mixed up the two 28mm
>f/3.5 tests.
Actually, what I did was first read your lens tests, and then
search through the archives for references to "28mm f3.5" and
similar text. It seemed to me that you first tested a 28/3.5
and it stunk. This was reflected in the tests at that time.
Then you found a better one and replaced the old test results
with the new one. It was difficult to try to determine the
history from the archives and I guess I assumed incorrectly.
>At a magnification ratio of about 1:12, one can readily detect
>curvature of field effects, even at optimum aperture. The
>corner contrast is too low to read anything written lightly in
>pencil. This is apparently the threshold for a wide angle to be
>able to get away with no close focus aberration correction
>mechanism (which is why the 35mm f/2 doesn't offer it, either).
Interesting. Between yours and C.H.'s recent posts, this is
beginning to make sense now.
Pete
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
< 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 >
|