> Moose wrote:
> [...]
> The Zuiko has almost the reverse history. Legend, and a Gary
> Reese test not on his site of an AG(?) very early, slightly
> radioactive 50/1.4, say that these earliest 50/1.4s were very
> sharp in the center, but not so good in the corners. The next
> bunch, through some unknown place in the SC era, were competent,
> but run of the mill lenses. [...]
Mine is probably one of those run of the mill lenses. I think
it's in the 500,000 or 600,000 range. Saying that, it's also
my favourite, and I've produced more sharp and decent (by
my standards) photos from it (and the OM1, with Kodak C41 Black
and White film) than anything else (being knocked into me,
as we speak, as I scan all of my film stuff in, going back
quite a few years now).
This means to me:
- that "run of the mill" is still very good to excellent
in a 50mm prime relative to a large portion of every other
lens you might get, or
- my standards at 8x12" print size aren't as high as others, or
- the other factors (camera, film, focal length, etc.) are more
important to me (unconsciously) than the overall sharpness, or
- a combination of all the above plus other stuff I haven't
really thought about because I'm not that clued up, and
am inherently too lazy to worry too much on, or
- I'm trying to convince myself of this to discourage myself
for hunting sharper equipment to feed to addiction. ;-)
Regardless, the unique nature of the above is probably of no
help to anyone, so if you've read this far, then more fool
you. :-D
Cheers,
Marc
Sydney, Oz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|