On 3/14/2019 1:18 PM, Frank wrote:
Hmm... the SWD picture is unsharp and/or shaken, I don't think you can
conclude anything from that picture. Except that the lens is a lemon if you
can't get it any better.
I noticed 1/100 for the SWD version and 1/320 & 1/500 for Takumar versions
though (which I like btw). Could that explain the difference?
I think the key data is ". . . my tripod set behind clean window glass . . ."
double glazed, perhaps?
Even if you get it perfectly perpendicular to the glass, is has a big effect on sharpness. I have occasionally shot
through our single glazing at birds on the feeder or fountain. I have always been disappointed.
Comparing shots through window glass will never meaningfully show the
differences between lenses.
Jim, when you say you have seldom used this Takumar 200/4 lens, because it
tends to be softer than
you prefer, is that through glass? I think that the longer the FL, the larger the degradation from shooting through
window glass.
It's not difficult to design a good 200/4, if size and weight aren't a problem. My pre-AI Nikkor-Q is a better lens on
FF than my OM 200/4 and 200/5 lenses, center and edge. It's also a much older design and a lot larger and heavier.
Look No Further Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|