I agree, it is a sort of back handed compliment, but the owner - I am
not sure if it is the same person who had it modified - was a
photo journalist I suspect, given the place I found the ad and the
other gear accompanying it.
I recall coming across a sort of review of this lens by someone who
obviously had lots of experience with similar calibre lenses from a
number of manufacturers. He said the zuiko had something that put it
slightly ahead of the nearest equivalent N*k*n and further ahead of
the others. I think the 'something' might have been contrast, though
I can't be sure as it was some time ago that I came across the item.
In contrast to that accolade I came across another review, though I
think it was of the 350mm f2.8 to be honest, by an astrophotographer
who had compared the zuiko and nearest equivalents from other
manufacturers. The test was of star resolution and the zuiko was
found wanting (slight bluish haloes?) and the c*n*n was the best
followed by the N*k*n.
I guess it depends whether your subjects are heavenly or terrestrial.
Given the first reviewers comments and their obvious extensive
experience I suspect the 250mm f2 Zuiko is one of, if not the, finest
lenses of this focal length ever made by anyone. If it has this rep
amongst the pros, that would explain why one was modified for use on
another system.
Giles
> Giles wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone top the horror, crime, indignity, waste, the utter
> > awfulness of a 250mm f2 adapted to C*n*o* ?
> >
> My first impulse was to thunder "Blasphemy!", but on reflection
> I think we should pity the poor fellow who had to resort to such
> desparate means.
> To think he felt he had do this (costly) modification to the Zuiko
> lenses instead of getting an original lens. Olympus should be proud.
>
> Regards
> Lars
>
> --
> Lars Haven
< 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 >
|