Hi John:
Thanks for the info on the opinions of some field testers regarding the
various Zuikos. It is enlightening.
I predict that we will find among the wide angles and normals that the faster
cousins (e.g., a 35mm f/2 vs. a 35mm f/2.8) offer a wider range of apertures
that have A quality ratings. Thus a photographer is less constrained as to
which apertures are optimal shooting apertures. I'm not sure we will find a
significant difference in image rendering ability when comparing the cousins
at their optimum apertures, though. In another words, both will have an
aperture in which they are a darn good performer, with neither being "sharper"
than the other.
Based on published tests, the faster cousins attain respectable image
rendering ability at a wider aperture. Conversely, based on Modern
Photography tests, the faster cousin may show diffraction limited performance
at a wider aperture than the slower cousin (e.g., at f/11 vs. f/16 in the
slower lens). For landscape photographers who often shoot at f/16, this,
along with length, price and weight could be important factors dictating a
slower wide angle lens arsenal. For available darkness photographers, the
faster lens will rule.
In the telephoto end, there is probably a tight correlation between cost and
image rendering performance at optimum aperture, as well as across the range
of apertures. But what throws me (and others) for a loop is that the zooms
are outperforming them. I never expected it and it leaves me disgusted that I
disregarded zooms over 70mm long for so long.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|