It may also be that one lens was a "friday" version, as opposed to a
"Wednesday" version. I always take tests as an opinion based on the
individual lens tested, which may or may not be representative of other
seemingly identical versions by the same manufacturer. They are all
produced to certain tolerances, so there can be variances between each.
Plus what looks good to my eye may be utter compost to you!
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>I always respect your careful, considered judgment. My remarks were
>based on my memory of old Modern Photography and Popular Photography
>tests. And those were confirmed by Gary Reese's tests. But the results
>of the lens in your hand is always more important than a published
>test.
>
>
>
>Winsor
>Long Beach, California
>USA
>On Jul 19, 2004, at 4:33 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
>
>
>
>>I agree the price of 40/2 is high today but I can't agree on the lower
>>optical quality. With slides I didn't found its resolution poorer than
>>35/2
>>at stopped down, at wide open it is even better than 35/2. The close
>>focus
>>performance is also excellent, not only it has higher mag. than 50/1.4
>>it is
>>also much sharper at close distance. It is now the lens I always bring
>>with
>>my E-1, I don't need to look for a 50/2 anymore.
>>
>>C.H.Ling
>>
>>
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|