I know, but if someone say he found a lens was soft wide open, do you think
he was shooting landscape? Most likely peripheral resolution will not be the
point of complain.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: Sometimes, the 'bad' lenses aren't so bad
> Perhaps you have forgotten that shooting with the E300 you're only testing
> the sweet spot in the center.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
>> -------Original Message-------
>> From: C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [OM] Re: Sometimes, the 'bad' lenses aren't so bad
>> Sent: Oct 14 '07 11:04
>>
>>
>> My experience with the 40/2 is different, it is quite sharp wide open,
>> here
>> is the test I just made with E300, all shoot in RAW and converted with
>> Olympus Viewer, sharpness -5. Camera in tripod with 2 seconds shutter
>> delay.
>>
>> The lens in compare is the OM Zuiko 50/2 Macro. Yes, the 50/2 is sharper
>> but
>> I won't say the 40/2 is soft wide open.
>>
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/40F2_F2.jpg
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/50F2_F2.jpg
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/40F2_F4.jpg
>> http://www.accura.com.hk/50F2_F4.jpg
>>
>> C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
