Pete writes:
<< 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. >>
Ah, now I know what you did to get this information. Good man in
researching your question first! A very few of my lens tests done on an
OM-1 got dropped from the web site. I had intended to drop as many OM-1
based tests as I could, but I had some vocal opposition to that idea
from the OM List.
I had a 28mm f/3.5 which was a dog in the corners, vignetted like crazy
when stopped down with filters, and showed strong diffraction limited
performance stopped down, as you might have learned reading the
Archives. I was SO HAPPY to dump it when the 28mm f/2.8 came out. And
I never regretted it, either.
The worst part about wide angle vignetting among the compact Zuikos is
that you often have to use depth of field preview to detect it. One just
doesn't remember to do that in the heat of a shoot.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|