In a message dated 98-05-13 17:37:59 EDT, you (George) wrote:
<< There are counterexamples, but my point is that I'm surprised the zooms
are even close to the primes and astonished that the #s in many cases
are better. Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on this? Or is
my interpretation of the data faulty? >>
There seem to be some quirks in the way MP compiled their data (sloppy data
entry) and there was certainly the possiblity of lens-to-lens variations but
there seem to be a number of "sleeper" lens that no one touts. I have
extracted a list of lens that have at least 5 high contrast ratings either at
the center or edge or at least 5 high contrast ratings at each point for a
zoom lens:
16/3.5, 18/3.5, 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 24 shift, 40/2, most of the 50mms, 90/2,
100/2, 135/2.8, 180/2, 35-70/4, 35-70/3.5-4.5, 35-105, and 100-200. (See
http://www.astro.wellesley.edu/lhawkins/photo/photo.html for the MP
compilation.) There are no contrast results for many of the older lens and I
apologize if your personal favorite is not included. Although the MP
standards was slightly lower for zooms compared to primes, there are a
surprising number of zooms that pass this not-so-definitive test.
Warren Kato
wkato@xxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|