Re: [OM] OM wides (21/2, et al)

[Fernando Gonzalez Gentile]

Chuck, I much more agree on your reasoning here below than on your
reasoning regarding cholesterol.
Just a joke, don't take me seriously.

:-)

Fernando.

2010/8/27 Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Me thinks you guys are being overly severe.  I distinctly remember the
> 200/4 having an apparently sympathetic vibration problem.  I haven't
> checked all the lenses yet but I did look over a lot of them up to 135mm
> and don't see any significant problem there.  It's very difficult to get
> a true indication of the difference between mirror lock on the OM-1 and
> mirror pre-fire on the 2s and up.  The problem is that most of the tests
> using different cameras also use different samples of the lenses.  In
> most cases the differences don't amount to a full grade and, since they
> aren't paired tests, it's not valid to evaluate one as better than
> another.  Probably the biggest shock is not the effect of the diaphragm
> slap but the performance difference of different lens samples.
>
> Perhaps I'd find more trouble above 135mm but I got tired of looking and
> comparing.  For hand held shooting I doubt there's a problem at all and,
> of course, on a tripod you can generally exert a lot of control.
>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/