At 4/3/2023 03:17 PM, Mike wrote:
><<An interesting article still relevant today I think? before dpreview
>disappears
>
><<https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333489584/variation-facts-and-fallacies
>
>Hi Wayne,
>Fortunately, Roger's blogs/articles will survive on his site. That article
>was 12 years ago and I was fussing because the lens will be used wide open on
>a 42 megapickle cam with
>aspirations for a large print if all turns out. I certainly learned early on
>that very precise focusing is key to testing and do that manually under
>highest magnification and then review the images at max mag to be sure have
>the best sharpness.
>I really didn't want an obviously weak corner. It was not a stinker lens as
>outlier but clearly not top tier. The softness was just visible on my monitor
>at normal viewing mag and very easy to see at 100%. My Loxia was definitely
>decentered but I never use it but stopped down, so didn't bother with the
>aggravation of an exchange as it would not make difference in any scenario for
>which I was likely to use it. Anyways I am happier with the lens and will
>take better images regardless, because I am happier with the lens. Could the
>softness be evened out in post--perhaps, but that is not the point.
>
>Mike
I have received soft lenses. Not many people go to the trouble to test their
lenses, including me sometimes. I didn't mean to imply you should not. The
article also indicates the odds. You should try to get a sharp copy, keep
fussing, but if after 3 tries, that would indicate low probability of finding
an exceptional copy.
I would avoid getting used lenses, such as on mpb, where a bad copy is more
likely.
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|