Indeed - buy a lens, test, test, take it back and try another.
Unfortunately consumers often assume that they've got the standard
and testers don't usually have time (deadline this week!) and the
local store may only have one in stock. Damn, I have enough trouble
making sure I've got a spare card when the bloody thing shows up with
a 16meg, or nothing at all because it's got 10.5 on the board.
It tends to show that despite the exhaustive testing that these sites
do, the average joe buyer doesn't have much of a chance. I was going
to buy a Sigma 12-24mm off ebay at one point for about 60% of the
local price but then discovered that many had decentring problems -
on side of the image just off focus. That's one I'd buy locally and
definitely not used.
I try and put myself in the smarter than average buyer's position and
just report on what I get - after all, I'm neither a professional
photog nor a professional tester and neither are they - just another
desperate on the wrong side of the counter. Remember that many buyers
are happy with 'good enough' image quality so long as it looks good,
costs less and is easy to use.
I'll try the 14-45mm on B-mode today - the body is fine. This I know
because the 11-22mm I borrowed performed well. That is a very nice lens.
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.pbase.com/afildes
On 11/02/2006, at 9:51 AM, Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I got a reply from them and they argued that
> their bad results with the 60mm macro when several other testers got
> similar or better results than the 105mm lens they loved, was sample
> variation. Not confidence inspiring.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|