GMA 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 are examples of zooms that outperform many of the best in prime
lenses. Why is that so? For one thing, more development dollars are spent
on zooms than prime lenses in the 35-200 range.
You can't state that one lens "type" is better than another anymore.
However, there is the unquantifiable qualities of the lenses that need to be
taken into account. It's like sports cars... You can get a Volvo station
wagon that outperforms a Ferrari in Accelleration, braking and skid pad
performance, but it is still not a Ferrari. Zinging down a mountain road,
I'd still prefer the Ferrari and hanging out at the beach? No contest.
How a lens handles out of focus highlights is probably among the most
important factors in lens selection. This is a personal issue and no two
photographers will agree on what is best as it touches the heart of our
compositions. What I consider good bokah is bad bokah to somebody else.
Ken N.
"...baad Bokah, you were bad. Look what you did to the carpet. Now go to
your box..."
< 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 >
|