At 03:06 AM 12/17/98 EST, Gary Reeves wrote:
>I am digitally printing for the holidays lots of my old shots of family. I'm
>really lamenting having relied on some budget Zuikos for so many years and
not
>capturing shots with as good of lenses as was possible.
To which lenses are you referring here, Gary?
This brings to mind the recent thread where James Olsen (?) was
contemplating replacing his 24/2 and 35/2 with a 28/2.8. I mentioned that
as a rule of thumb, a "one stop slower" lens is better at normal daylight
picture-taking apertures than its faster counterpart, but the faster lens
is better near wide-open. The recently posted British article on
rediscovering OMs said much the same thing.
But your own tests show the 35/2 to be significantly better than the 35/2.8
across the board, and someone else favored the 24/2's quality over the 24/2.8.
What gives? Of course, mileage may vary as lighting, contrast and subject
distance vary. And we're not taking into account SC vs. MC. But are some
of the faster Zuikos just better corrected than the slower counterparts?
Or is something else at work here--such as that the slower lenses are used
more outdoors and treated more roughly?
----
: -----==3== --- ---
- Peter - : | | | | | | | |
: @| @| @| @| @| @| @| @|
< 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 >
|