I'd say it was a tie if we take into consideration the "Real World" in the
header to this thread. I don't know anyone who views their slides under a 40X
microscope. Most of my friends either project them or use a slide wiewer! <g>
George S.
mattboland@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> >Results:
> >There was no visible difference in colour rendition.
> >
> >Loupe:
> >no difference could be seen.
> >
> >Projection to about 1,2 x 1,8 m:
> >there was a slight difference visible at a viewing distance of about 30cm
> >( which is of course not the normal distance for slides projected to this
> >size) the black on white writing on a sign in the middle of the picture ,
> >(original size on the slide : 1 mm x .6 mm) was easier readable on the
> Zuiko
> >slide.
> >
> >Microscope:
> >The writing on the sign described above was clearly sharper on the Zuiko
> >slide, it appeared softer and les contrasty on the Tokina, but was still
> >readable.
> >
> >Other slides were also in every case better with the Zuiko in very small,
> >critical areas, but differences were only clearly visible under the
> >microscope.
> >
> >Scanner:
> >absolutely no chance to see differences with my Epson 1650 photo,
> everything
> >came out unsharp...
> >
> >Conclusion:
> >Differences are very small, but still in favour of the Zuiko. At normal
> >slide viewing distance, differences are nor discernable .
> >
> >Both are excellent lenses ,taking the conditions of the pictures.
> >
> >
> >Further tests : as soon as the sky clears up during nighttime, I will take
> >pics of the sky at full opening ( this is afaik the hardest test one could
> >perform)
> >
> >report will follow sometime...
> >
> >Rainer
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|