No, I think I just didn't get the exposures exactly the same. But my point
was, and still is, that the old 65-200, cloudy lens element and all, is still
usable and is, at least to my old eyes, just about as sharp as the
30-years-newer DZ lens. Certainly, it's a lot less versatile, and it won't
change which lens I use with the E-thingies, but maybe my little experiment
will keep some of you from pitching your foggy-element oldies in the trash just
yet. I've put it back where I can easily find it for film shooting,
particularly in harsh sunlight. Sometimes we look too much at the gear and not
enough at what the gear can do.
Walt
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Wayne S <om4t@xxxxxxxx>
> At 01:58 PM 3/24/2006, Walt wrote:
>
> >Crop of center portion of 50-200DZ shot:
> >
> >http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1100.jpg
> >
> >Same crop of center portion of old, cloudy 65-200 Zuiko:
> >
> >http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/media/192375/site1101.jpg
> >
> >I'm not sure what to think about this. I do think, though, I need a nap
> >before
> I think about it any
>
> There weren't clouds passing by changing the light?
>
> Wayne
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
