On Fri, 15 May 1998, PCA Cala wrote:
|Hi John:
|
|> Then suspect strongly that all else is NOT equal. :-) For
|> instance, the 35-80/2.8 uses a UD element and 5 refractive
|> index lenses. A fixed lens may employ less exotic material
|> which compromises sharpness (and contrast) below that of a
|> pro zoom even though it uses a lower element count.
|
|To be fair, one should look at a cost/performance ratio. Olympus designers
|were given a rare go ahead to design a slightly wide angle to short telephoto
|zoom without optical compromise. And the price shows what it took to
|accomplish that. Now is it far to compare that to a used 50 mm f/1.8 that
|Paul vT used to sell for $19? As a man of limited means, I've always
|considered primes to be my way of producing outstanding image quality at a
|price that still allows me to eat and have a shelter.
Well, sure, you're right. I was merely addressing the
original question concerning the quality comparisons between
zooms and primes. I am currently sans normal zoom myself
having sold my 35-70/3.6. I compensate for its loss with my
35/2, 50/1.8, and 90/2 and zoom with my feet.
Pro zooms (particularly) and primes are designed with a
heavy emphasis on performance first and economics a distant
second. Consumer grade materials have an inverted emphasis
of varying degrees. The user decides how much sharpness
they need and can afford.
< 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 >
|