I am finding that you have to take SLR Gear with more than a grain of
salt. They tested the Nikon 18-200 and found that it was a dog. For
whatever reason they doubted the results, retested, found that it was
not bad and posted the new results.
They also tested a Nikon 105mm macro and thought it was the best
thing since sliced bread. They tested a Nikon 60mm macro and found
another even worse dog. Funny thing is, that is in conflict with a
respected Nikon lens tester(who did not like the 60mm( but primarily
because of the focal length and the close focus distance); Nikon's
own MTF graphs which show them to be about the same except the 60mm
is sharper in the middle; and, last but not least, the MTF graphs by
Photodo which show the 60mm to be superior to the 105.
Maybe it is the DXO. Maybe it is them. I don't know. They really need
to get their act together. I would not trust anything they say until
they explain their problem, how they fixed it, and show retested
results for everything.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Feb 10, 2006, at 7:28 AM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: USHER99
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:19:34 -0500
> Subject: [OM] Re: 14-45mm vs 50mm 3.5 macro
>
>
> What a hassle. There is little way to know how tight the QA is in
> the manufacturing. You probably have seen the review of the lens
> with the DXO routine, but here it is anyways. It should not
> produce the image you posted. Hope it works out.
>
>
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/32/sort/7/
> cat/all/page/2
> Mike
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|