Hi Ranjan:
<< just purchased a 200 f4 zuiko, and noticed it is the single coated
version . . . but read in Gary 's lens tests mention that this lens has
low contrast. >>
You missed a subtle point made by the many 200mm f/4 test variations I
posted: it's not so much the lens optics that come into play here, it is
the way it is used. Thus, Joel's suggestion to get a telephoto (long
lens) support to go with it.
The comments under the 200mm f/4 single coated test are "old text." I
now know why the lens tested so poor: OM-1 harmonic vibrations. Someday
I'll consistently revise all the text in the Notes sections.
Anytime I report lower contrast to an optic that was shot on an OM-1
(vs. a OM-4 or OM-2000 based test), part of it is likely due to
vibration in the OM-1 itself. But don't read too much into the contrast
data, unless I have a column for contrast at various apertures. Contrast
of the test subject was dependent on exposure, which couldn't be tightly
controlled between shoots and even differed between lenses (due to
different t/stops). Underexposures always looked contrastier than normal
exposures, which looked contrastier than overexposures.
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 >
|