I myself found the 100/2 has higher resolution than the
90/2 for distance objects, especially for less contrast
different objects. Modern Photography's test also shown
that the resolution figure of both are very close at 1:49.
http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/mp-zuiko-tests.txt
There is also an interesting comment from Photodo:
Quote Start:
=========
For example the Canon EF
200/1,8L USM has its peak at f4.
We don?t measure beyond f8 because lens
performance at small apertures is limited
more by diffraction than by optical quality.
At very small apertures all lenses are about
equally bad.
=======
Quote End.
Anyone care to comment about this? A long lens that
would degrade after F4 by diffraction?
C.H.Ling
"John A. Prosper" wrote:
>
> Photodo
> Test Result
>
> Zuiko 90/2.0 4.2
>
> Zuiko 100/2.0 3.9
>
> Zuiko 35-80/2.8 3.6
>
> Canon 200/1.8 4.8 {Highest score}
>
> I thought the 100/2 would test out higher than it did. Oh well, the
> lower resolution makes it a better portrait lens. ;-)
>
< 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 >
|