I agree. My50 serial number is 2,822,xxx.
I finally get what you mean by thick sensor stack and likely explains the
"glowish" effect caused from the light angle hitting the sensor bleeding into
adjacent sensor cells. I was wondering also, with back side illuminated
sensors, that the micro lenses could be further from the actual sensor cells?
Is this what you mean by "Stack". With BSI sensors, you can't polish away the
backside and make it too thin?
With the adapter on the Zuiko 50 it is about the same length as the Zeiss 55.
At 8/14/2019 01:37 AM, Moose commented:
>On 8/13/2019 5:48 PM, Wayne Shumaker wrote:
>>Perhaps an unfair test, but couldn't resist. OM 50/1.8 vs Zeiss 55/1.8 @ 1.8.
>
>>First test with late series OM 50/1.8 with Fotasy adapter on a7riii, shot
>>wide open, compared to Sony Zeiss 55/1.8, also manually focused the same way.
>>This was highly rated 50 on Gary Reese's testing. I have a second OM 50 and
>>should check it as well.
>
>>Based only on this one test I have to say the Zeiss way out performs the OM
>>50/1.8 in sharpness and contrast. The OM 50 has a soft look too it, almost a
>>fuzzy glow. Here are two 100% crops. The OM subject was more centered, the
>>Zeiss shot subject was off to the right. This is not a super controlled test,
>>and perhaps higher F stop would help the OM. I really like the Zeiss 55. That
>>and the Sony 90 macro is nice and handles well, easily switching from AF to
>>MF by pushing the focus ring forward...
>
>>OM 50/1.8 100% cropped
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/p690qd1gxba2f01/7R301920_crop2.jpg?dl=0
>
>>Zeiss 55/1.8 100% cropped
>>https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ehikvsgwmyppip/7R301924_crop2.jpg?dl=0
>
>Thanks for testing and showing us the results.
>
>My highest serial # 50/1.8, 5,814,xxx, was produced in Sept, 1985, according
>to the date code on it. Although a consumer grade lens, it stomps the 1960-ish
>design, premium Canon 58/1.2, from roughly 25 years earlier. The Zeiss here is
>about 30 years newer than the Zuiko, a period of great advances in glass,
>glass shaping and computer aided design. It's also a premium lens, with one
>more element - and three of the elements have at least one aspheric surface.
>
>So, I'm not surprised the new Zeiss outperformed the old Zuiko.
>
>I can think of a couple of reasons why your results may not be entirely
>representative of the inherent optical designs. The Zuiko is at least 30 years
>old, and may not be in perfect shape.
>The A7 series have a very thick sensor stack that does have an effect on
>lenses not designed for it. The Zeiss is, and the Zuiko isn't.
>
>A Spheric 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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
