No need to duck for cover on my account! I'm always up for other input. My
F.ZUIKO 50 1.8 served me well, and I never complained of its performance.
That's not to say it isn't bettered by the miJ samples, nor say, the f2 macro.
Etc. I must admit my 100 2.8 is subjectively better than the 50s I've had,
though I haven't examined results from my f1.4 yet. And my 21 f2 is very nice
indeed.
I've read Gary's tests quite closely, and use them as a guide.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/4/2003 at 12:57 PM Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
>The Zuiko 28/3.5 I had was a big-time slouch. My Zuiko 28/2 was a
>slouch. The 200/4 was a big-time slouch too.
>
>All of the non-miJ 50s I've had were slouches. (I guess I've had 3 by
>now.) Look at Gary's tests of the 50s. God bless him, he
>just kept testing them, as if to say, "We must have a winner one day!"
>The finest one doesn't come close to the performance of the
>3.6 zoom, a *more modern design*.
>
>My 100/2.8 was a great lens and the 135/3.5 was good too. So, if I scored
>my Zuikos on a slouch/total basis, 6/8 were slouches. In
>my opinion, there was room for improvement in sharpness, yeah. The fit
>and finish are really beautiful but they're tools to me. If
>I had not found test results on the web that pointed me to sharper 3-party
>lenses, I might have jumped into an EOS film body by now.
>Not that I'm complaining... anymore.
>
>ducking for cover,
>Lama
>
>From: "Earl Dunbar" 3. While the hype over Zuiko Digital lenses is, from
>what I can see, quite justified, that doesn't make older
>Zuikos slouches.
>
>
>< 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 >
|