[No apologies needed. I found this quite interesting]
On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, george wrote:
> I would go with Canon without hesitation, at least for lens quality.
This changes if one goes by Pop Photo tests, with each company
having some "stars".
IMO, Canon has had the edge on Nikon (and everybody) with the IS lenses
for years. Just now, with the F-80, there's an 80-400 Nikkor announced
with IS.
> Also, while Tokina, Tamron and Sigma do have a couple of fine
> performers, they seemed, on average, to be of lesser quality
> than the mfg lenses. This did not surprise.
Here PD and PP agree. But when they're good...
> george (who they don't call Cleopatra, so I can't be the Queen o' de Nile.)
Sick man. :-)
> > First, the lens that Dirk left out, the 35-80/2.8:
> >
> > I ran advanced search, only zooms, only mtf above 3.5 on Nikon D AF mount.
> > Had 9 hits. Of those, only 2 are focal range competitors:
> > Overall wide open ave mtf@40lpmm
> > Zuiko 35-80/2.8 3.6 (77.5) 71.0 .49
> > Nikon 'AF D' 35-70/2.8 3.8 (79.3) 63.3 .51
> > Nikon 28-70/2.8 ED-IF 3.7 (78.4) 69.3 .51
> >
> > First off, the Zuiko has the widest focal range, so it's the more
> > challenging lens design, and the more useful lens, eh?
Only if you measure by millimeters. In real-world terms, meaning
angle of view, the OM 35-80 covers 63-30 = 33 deg
Canon 28-70 75-34 = 41 deg
Nikkor 35-70 63-34 = 29 deg
So here, I would disagree with the above conclusion. Plus, there's
the PP test of the (monstrously enormous) Contax 28-85, which seemed
superior to all others --- and had the wider range as well (not to
mention the wider price).
> > They totally ignore wide-open performance.
While statistically speaking this is true WRT significance in a
majority of shots for most people, IRL, part of the reason
for buying a more expensive, always heavier & larger faster optic,
is because of the ability to USE that faster stop. Thumbs down on that.
> > (We note for the record that Nikon advertises on this site.)
Oh-oh...conspiracy theory ???
> > Now consider the Nikon 35-70. A nice lens, but *where's the
> > extra 10mm of range? It has a 3.8 rating based on ave mtf of 79.3, but we
> > notice under the scope that photodo was very *right* in their poor wide open
> > performance assumption for this lens.
In the PP tests, however, it's about even with the Canon 28-70
wide open and has less fall-off. The Canon is the max sharpness king,
however The OM 35-80 outshines both wide open, and is more consistent
across the f-stop range. But it must be said these are ALL great
pro-caliber lenses, and that we are splitting hairs.
The 105/2.5 Nikkor is amazingly good for being an ancient formula.
Years ago, I saw some 40x60" dye transfers made from slides by Jay Maisel
done with this lens, and they were awesome. There's nowhere to hide
at that size print.
> > BTW, I also looked at the rating for the much-ballyhooed Nikon 24-120
> > F/3.4-5.6 IF - it got a 2.3
Here PP disagrees with PD. I have heard many complaints about this lens,
but also seen some great-looking pics.
> > Canon EF 28-70/2.8 L USM (3.9) Looks a bit better. But one data point is
> > missing. Did they make it up?
Somebody call Oliver Stone...:-)
> > That's it. Of all zooms in this range, only 3 are in the ballpark. Even
> > Leica and Contax fail to hit this mark.
* COUGH, SPUTTER, GAG * PP would disagree on the 28-85 Contax.
A wonderful analysis, George...
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|