I agree with both Piers and Moose. But I've been surprised at how much haze a
lens can have without it really affecting its performance. I had over the
years frequently and happily used my 65-200/4 Zuiko. (In good light, it's a
better walk-around lens than the 80-200/2.8 Tamron just because of the size and
weight.) Anyway, a couple of years ago the subject of the often cloudy element
toward the rear of this lens came up here.
Being an "if it ain't broke, don't mess with it" kind of guy, I don't inspect
the gear unless there's an obvious problem, but shining a flashlight inside
this lens was a horrifying experience: there was that one element that looked
like it had been spattered with mist from a paint sprayer! It seems to have
little or no effect on the image, certainly not enough to turn it into a
soft-focus portrait lens, but now that I know it's there, I just don't use it
much anymore.
Maybe there's a lot of truth in the old saying that ignorance is bliss. Could
that be why I'm a happy camper most of the time?
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Rob Smith wrote:
> >The lens also looks slightly cloudy if you shine a bright light through from
> >the rear and look at the front from one side. My other 50mm f1.8 does not do
> >this.
> >Any diagnosis?
> >
> What Piers said. You might keep it and use it when you want a very
> slightly softer, less contrasty image. People pay good money for filters
> to do that.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|