Ok, I try to add some more:
Size and weight?
- need to fit easily into your favorite camera bad, not too heavy to occupy
too much on you carrying capability.
Handling?
- Some lens are not too good in weight balance like the Zuiko 65-200, the
front is too heavy when zoom in.
Focusing speed?
- The focusing angle must be optimized, too small is very critical in
focusing, too large will be very slow. The Zuiko 35-105 is just too large at
the wide end
- Focusing friction, suitable damping is need, not too much and not too
little. Like some Lei*a R lens I have tried, they are too tight and focusing
angle is also too large, like the 180/2.8 APO.
Of course it will depends on how you use the lens, if you put on the tripod
for landscapes, there will be no problem.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> No attempt to be contentious . . . just a few thoughts . . .
>
> At 10:38 10/4/02, Ag-Schnozz wrote:
> >How do you define "QUALITY" in a lens?
> >
> >Is it Sharpness?
> >Is it Contrast?
> >Is it Specifications?
> >Is it Lens Test Results?
> >Is it some esoteric calculations that only a geek can figure
> >out?
> >
> >It's been a while since we've had our MC/SC/blacknose/silvernose
> >wars and I'm in a mood to stir the pot, I guess.
>
> You've named only a subset of criteria to consider. I'll add a few more:
> Is it Robustness (build quality, durability, etc.)?
> Is it Speed?
> Is it Bokeh?
> Is it Flare Resistance?
> Is it MTF curve, and if so, what shape curve (combo of
contrast/resolution)?
> Is it Flatness of Field?
> Is it Absence of Barrel/Pincushion Distortion?
> Is it Absence of Astigmatism?
> Is it Absence of Chromatic Aberration?
>
< 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 >
|