AG Schnozz wrote:
How do you define "QUALITY" in a lens?
When is a flawed lens NOT a flawed lens? Is haze on an element
necessarily a bad thing? Where does character come in?
-----snip------
Which brings me to my point of discussion. When is a flaw in a
lens actually a benefit?
AG-Schnozz
When is a flaw a benefit? Primarily when it brings the price down to
where I can afford it.
I think it would be interesting to do some controlled tests. In the
interests of science I'll be glad to offer the following:
135mm f2.8 (light fungus)
135mm f3.5 (haze)
50mm f1.4 silver nose (physically abused by a previous owner)
The recently discussed 50mm f3.5macro (still has some rotted foam
between the elements)
24mm f2.8 (which I keep having to open and reconnect the aperture
connections on)
Early semi-scientific measurements indicate that as bad as the lenses
may be, they still have more resolution than my scanner.
P.S. My upcoming Tope 11 entry was done with the 24, and scanned by the
new local WalMart grocery store.
Thanks, Steve Goss, Dallas Tx usa
< 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 >
|