You are expecting much more precision of measurement than is actually
there. These are subjective evaluations, not instrumented MTF scores.
If you read Gary's test comments (below) you'll see that there is no
difference between A+, A and A- for two different lenses unless a paired
comparison was made. That was not the case for most tests and there are
also significant sample differences to be found between lenses. Gary's
tests are all also performed at 1:40 magnification. I would also submit
that your own observations of your own 90/2's performance are even more
subjective, especially using a hand held shot. But if you're happy with
what you've got that's all that matters.
-------------------------------------------------------------
"* Subjective quality factor style grades are relative, with A+ = best,
then B, C, D, and F (worst); differences are significant across full
letter grades only (unless a paired comparison was made - as noted)"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Norcutt
Dawid Loubser wrote:
>
> What I find interesting (especially in light of my own experience of
> this lens) is the less than world-dominating figures the lens scores
> in Gary Reese's lens test (kindly reproduced by Ken in his link in
> the previous e-mail). Why do you think that is? Not a single "A"+
> rating anywhere, though I would certainly rate even my hand-held
> macro images with this lens as such... Perpendicular beach macro
> shots at ~50cm render every last grain of beach sand with complete
> and uniform clarity, right to the frame edge.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|