On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Gene Mayeda wrote:
> The Zuiko 24mm F/2.8 is a much better lens than that old Nikkor.
In the standard sense of "better" (more lpm's, contrast, field
curvature, streaking, flare, distortion, fall-off, etc. ), absolutely, but
that is exactly what I am calling into question: Are the standards used by
optical engineers what photographers should base their decisions on ?
By "modern" standards, many classic images were created with "dog" lenses.
Believe me, on jobs, I carry my newest equipment. I don't want to
appear "retro", either, because I also use and enjoy my AF Nikons
routinely. But the old lenses really are special in many ways.
I did not mean to imply any comparison between the OM 24/2.8 & the 28/3.5
Nikkor.
> It
> should be since it was designed later and is a newer generation in
> retrofocus wideangles.BTW I have owned both Nikkor and Zuiko 24mm F2.8
> lenses.I think the Nikkor was sharper and/or contrastier than the Zuiko
> by a tad.The Nikkor had an interesting golf tee shaped flare whenever it
> was pointed at the sun.
I also have a 24/2.8 Nikkor, and I agree, down to the oddball flare!
I liked both lenses a lot but that old Nikkor 28
> F/3.5 from the 1960's is a real dog.Perhaps it snuck through the quality
> control and is not typical.> -Gene
Mine is not THAT old, is an AI model. Someday I will compare it with my
28/3.5 Zuiko (which I also like).
Cheers,
*= Doris Fang =*
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|