Jan (to the point) Steinman wrote:
> Not that I want to dissuade anyone from doing such research, but good
> goddess, man -- which one do you LIKE?
>
The very very first two lenses I bought for my OM-2S were the 35/2.8 and
100/2.8. At the moment I'm not sure which was which, but they were
separated by one week. I think the 35/2.8 was first. Somewhere along the
line, I stupidly sold the 35/2.8 and a couple years ago Tom Scales remedied
that by selling me another.
Without a doubt, if I could have only one lens for the rest of my life, it
would have to be the 35/2.8, but I would give up pizza to also have the
100/2.8. There is no doubt that the 35/2.8 is hugely more useful than the
24/2.8.
However, a man could live comfortably with the 35-80... Especially with the
bokeh!
But the reason for my exercise was to quantify what I have been experiencing
and determine once and for all where my problem spots with these lenses
are. Doing the other lenses in my stable was just a bonus since I had
everything set up and it didn't take very long.
By no means am I saying the 24/2.8 is junk--far from it. What I am saying
is that I've experienced image sharpness issues with the 24/2.8 which I knew
was user-induced, but without copious notes was phantom like in its
appearance and disappearance.
I will retest with the E-3 as that will give me a better idea of what's
going on in the fringes. We've done identical controlled tests with the E-3
using center and edge targets in an attempt to profile the 12-60, 14-54 and
50-200. BTW, all three are stellar performers. I've got all the raw files
from those tests, but haven't gotten around to doing anything with them yet.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|