>Ho, ho, you're looking at the non-APO version. The APO is rated at a value
>of 2.5, considerably better. I've owned this lens and had much joy from it.
>Not a stellar lens, but with proper technique you will get very decent
>results. The average MTF of 0.68 is in fact quite good, not very much worse
>than the much more expensive Contax Tele-tessar 300/4 (a Zeiss lens) at 3.0
>and 0.72 MTF.
>
>Ulf Westerberg
O.k. you are right, it's the non apo version which seems to be the worst
fixed focal length lens. But I had never bought this lens (the apo version)
without the very good reviews I had read here in Germany (oh, I'm repeating
myself), and the lens I had to use then (I even tried a second specimen)
was dissapointing with its results. I also tried to use the whole aperture
range, but there was no possibility to achieve different result than those
which looked almost more like a painting than a photo with regard to
brilliance. The result of the 300mm tele-tessar is astonishing, maybe the
author should test further specimen. If those tests are the same you have
read recently in Swedish magazines, I can't confirm your conclusion, that
Zeiss lenses are only average, because the 300mm seems to be an exception
together with the new Aria zoom. The MTF is a method developed by Zeiss and
is still very powerful, for the brilliance the graphs for 10 and 20 lp/mm
are said to be more important.
Matthias
< 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 >
|