I also have a miJ for comparison. Don't know the sn of my 1.4.
Earl
Moose wrote:
>
> edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> ><>
> >What has been interesting is the number of people who have listed the 50
> >f1.4 as a favourite. Now that I have one I'll have to give it a real
> >workout.
> >
> One of my pet peeves is generic preformance references to the 50/1.4 and
> 50/1.8. If you look at Gary's tests, you will see huge differences
> between early and late versions. Beyond that, Gary privately tested a
> very early 50/1.4 with radioactive glass. He found it quite sharp in the
> center, better than later SCs and close to the MC versions, but softer
> at the edges than the MC versions. My very early 50/1.8 isn't a very
> sharp or contrasty lens, but the last versions of the 1.8 are excellent.
>
> >Earl
> >
>
> >fgnzalez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> ><>
> >
> > 3. Nikkor 43~86 - didn't like it either.
>
> This went through 2 or 3 versions, never great, but the first was pretty
> poor.
>
> > 4. Nikkor 50mm/1.4 was better than my G.Zuiko.
>
> See Above. Nikk*r 50/1.4 also went through design/performance evolution,
> still is in AF versions.
>
> Moose
>
>
> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
> List Problem"
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|