You're right, of course. I pay little attention to lens test figures,
except as a rough filter (I wouldn't waste time investigating the purchase
of a lens that tested uniformly poorly, for instance). Lens performance
ratings -- unless based upon resolution and distortion measurements alone --
are highly subjective, anyway. For instance, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 on my
late Nikkormat (the one I traded for my new OM-2n) was very sharp. It may
have been, in fact, nearly as sharp as the Summicron 50mm f2 on my old Leica
M4. I preferred the Leitz lens by far, though, because the gradation of
tones it rendered was so smooth that the images had a life-like, almost
3-dimensional quality unmatched by any other I've seen. This was
especially noticeable when projecting transparencies. You felt as if you
could walk into the scene. By comparison, the Nikkor images looked
"harsh". But, those are my observations. Another viewer might be delighted
at the Nikkor's "snappy" pictures and find the Leitz lens photos dull and
listless.
At any rate, I'll have a batch of test prints from my new Zuiko lens
tomorrow. I will keep in mind that the Olympus lens cost me 40 bucks. I
sold the Leica lens for $400 (and took a huge loss at today's insane
prices).
Thanks for the thoughts, Gary.
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Reese" <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2000 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] New Guy - Old Questions
> >2) How do the Nikkor and Zuiko optical qualities compare? (I find
Nikkor
> >less than thrilling...but that's because I owned Leicas for years until a
> >family illness forced the sale of my modest collection).
>
> That quetion was addressed by Herbert Keppler in the December 1978 (I
> believe) Modern Photography. His conclusion was that it had nothing to
> do with the quality of the lenses ...
< 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 >
|