You're probably right. I only did a star test. I wanted to use the lens at
night, not only for astr, but for moonlight. I might be able to scan and
post a couple of these tests if anyone's interested. No need to respond, I
figure Zuiks are always interested in test slides. 21/3.5 poor close-up?
Never tested that either. Wouldn't use either for copy work.
George
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of C.H.Ling
> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 5:40 PM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Keeping "unused" lens
>
>
> My test result found the 21/2 is not bad wide open but never test it
> wide open for night photo, it is expected to use tripod and stop down.
> For night street snap the corner performance is not so important
> unless you use it for astrophotography. The 21/3.5 has very bad close
> focus performance, the corners are badly soft, the 21/2 perform much
> better in this department but I will not use either for copy work.
>
> C.H.Ling
>
> "George M. Anderson" wrote:
> >
> > I only really tested it for night photography. I remember
> posting results
> > to the list, but that was in the last millenium. The lens suffers badly
> > from coma when wide open.
> >
> > George
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
> service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
> around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|