Whoa.....Take a deep breath. Perhaps i should have used 'stand alone'
wording in anticipation of cut and paste out of context and out of my
control as in the thread now presenting from Lee. My original post in
specific response to Gwinn's comment and provided herewith for context:
*****************************
One must factor:
- time period whence manufactured.
- where manufactured and the vendor for MC
- evolutionary period for the 1.8 versus the 1.2 which is more than an
order of magnitude when adjusted to include the number of units
produced for each design X options for low cost bid for large
production runs versus small / custom lots.
FACT: "Inconsistency" in coating does NOT equate to inconsistency in
optical performance.
Bill
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 05:24 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I believe that too, but what I see is perfect consistency in the
55/1.2 and complete inconsistency in the 50/1.8, and from economics
alone one would expect more care and tighter tolerances in the more
expensive lens.
*******************************
For total context, I provide total context from the initiating post BY
Gwinn:
**************************
Based on selling price alone, I would have expected the contrary. The
55/1.2 is a factor more expensive, while the 50/1.8 was the commodity
body cap intended to get Zuikoholoics slightly pregnant.
And the colors of the reflections from the 1.8 were all over the place,
including straw and white.
As for process control in coating plants, it would be basically useless
to build a coating plant that performs as you imply. If you couldn't
control the coating thickness to the wavelength required, it would be
hard to know what results you would get. The coatings that resulted
would likely (very likely) end up doing more harm than good.
I believe that too, but what I see is perfect consistency in the 55/1.2
and complete inconsistency in the 50/1.8, and from economics alone one
would expect more care and tighter tolerances in the more expensive
lens.
***************************
In retrospect, to avoid vicissitudes, I should have been more expansive
to the effect:
'Your response appears to equate colors ("colors of the reflections
from the 1.8 were all over the place...") as equivalent to
"inconsistency".
FACT: "inconsistency" as defined by "colors of the
reflections......all over the place" does NOT equate to inconsistency
in optical coating or optical performance.'
"inconsistency" has been introduced by those who cut and paste. When
the link is broken, so is the chain. I stand by my statement, and
gladly add further erudition sans viperous addition.
I am not thin-skinned so carry on. Continue the major contributions
you make to this list and to me and use caution re your BP.
Amen.
Bill
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 10:09 PM, R. Lee Hawkins wrote:
Bill wrote:
One must factor:
- time period whence manufactured.
- where manufactured and the vendor for MC
- evolutionary period for the 1.8 versus the 1.2 which is more
than an
order of magnitude when adjusted to include the number of units
produced for each design X options for low cost bid for large
production runs versus small / custom lots.
FACT: "Inconsistency" in coating does NOT equate to inconsistency in
optical performance.
I agree with everything Bill says, except the last item. What do you
base this "fact" on Bill? Are you actually suggesting I could take a
set of elements for a lens, throw them in the coating chamber, put
random thickness coatings on them, and end up with a lens that
performed
well optically? Coatings are governed by physics. I don't claim to
know everything about coatings... although I have designed them and
taught my students how to design basic coatings. It is a very
complicated
area. I still have volumes to learn. There is a reason why only the
most
expensive optical design programs can deal with multicoatings. And
there is a reason why when you change your coating design, you often
have
to tweak the optical presciption of the optical system. I don't want
to
start a war here, but one of the reasons I quit reading this list in
the
first place was statements that people swore to that were just plain
wrong.
It appears nothing has changed. I'm not even gonna comment on the
recent "get a Mac based on Unix* thread. That type of thread has no
business on this type of list, period. *sigh*
< 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 >
|