Walt Wayman wrote:
>I'm not a lens tester.
>
Sounds like you are the bst kind of lens tester.
>Well, I am, sort of, but the way I do it (with three brand-new $1 bills tacked
>to a fence) would make Gary blanch, faint, and probably not be able to speak
>for an hour. I just really like what I see from repeated use of certain
>lenses, with different films, under all sorts of conditions
>
Certainly the ultimate test.
>, and what I get from the 50/2 is similar to what I get and like so much with
>the 21/2, 35/2, 100/2 and 180/2.8.
>
And I haven't got a one of those. Maybe that's why I'm such a crappy
photographer. I'll have to ask Richard If I can borrow his 35-70/4. :-)
> That's why these are my favorites Zuikos. To me, they share that
> indefinable "something." I can't quantify it, measure it, or define it, so I
> won't try, since I'm considering myself an artist today.
>
>Did Rembrandt count the bristles in his brushes? ;-)
>
Could well have. They didn't have the internet back then, so there was
time for all kinds of compulsive behavior.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|