At 08:16 AM 12/28/99 +0000, you wrote:
> >>>
>One thing I think I'd like to try is a head-to-head-to-head-to-head
>comparison of all three 50s: the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 (SC and MC).
>Since I have an example of each of these four, I'm tempted to try
>some more exhaustive (and exhausting!) tests using my pro buddy's
>studio setup. Now if only I had an appropriate test target... Any
>suggestions, anyone?
><<<
>
>
>Just that you be careful about your conclusions. There are, for example,
>at least 5 known versions of the 50/1.8, and the best and the worst are
>miles apart, mainly due to very different coatings. Olympus's relatively
>late start with multicoating and their inconsistent labelling of lenses
>over the years have made for many fallacious presumptions as the result
>of "tests."
Understood. Ángel Lobo also asked me to specify precisely what each lens says
on its body, and of course, I'd already thought about that. Unfortunately,
Olympus never made it clear what lens construction/coating pairings there were
for which numerical series, so I'm skeptical as to how much info I can really
supply in that department, short of disassembling each lens afterwards. ;-)
Garth
< 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 >
|