I bought a Konica 85mm lens once with lots of tiny marks on the front, and the
rear element had some ghost-like stains from old fungus. Eventually I found a
pristine version, and for kicks I compared some Kodachromes made alternately
with each lens.
To my chagrin, I couldn't tell the difference. This was not a critical test;
the shots were hand-held, but for the way I intended to use it the marked up
lens was adequate.
Then a year ago I bought a 21mm Zuiko, and tried out some other hoods on it
since I didn't have the matching Oly hood. The best-suited one (actually a
square Konica 24/28) was a hair too small. But it didn't actually "vignette";
the corner edge of the hood was-sort of--in focus, especially at apertures I
was likely to use, and on a part of the film that would be covered by the slide
mount.
Back to the subject: This got me wondering if a flawed outer element is of more
concern on a wide or super-wide than on a moderate telephoto like the 85. That
is, are flaws more likely to show up on the wide, and less likely on the tele,
where they are more "blended in"?
Morgan
|