on 31/05/2006 15:40, Chuck Norcutt at chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx, wrote:
> Then, the next shock after that was that the 28/2.8 Zuiko wasn't much
> better than the Kiron 28-70. I rated it "poor" at f/5.6-f/8 and, like
> the Kiron it didn't produce something decent until f/11.
>
[snip]
>
> The results with the Zuiko 28 and the 28-70 Kiron almost lead me to
> believe that I'm looking at bad focus instead of lens performance. Note
> that they didn't get better until f/11 and f/16 and then the edges got
> better than the centers. On the other hand, I had to manually focus the
> Kiron 28-105 as well. I don't know why I'd do OK on that lens and not
> on the others. Anyhow, a little double checking might be in order later on.
Well, I don't have the Kirons to test my Z f2.8 aginst, but never
disappointed me, even after soaking it. I'm surprised...:-(
Fernando
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|