Hi,
Gary wrote:
> Real world picture taking is full of so many "external factors" that it is
a minor miracle everytime we get a keeper shot. MTF graphs > are so far
removed from the external factors that effect each and every one of our
shots that it amazes me so much attention is being > paid to them.
This is exactly what I meant to say with my comments.
Gary's tests learn us a lot.
However, we should be very, very carefull with judging lenses by their SQF
(or MTF) ratings. Comments like "the Zuiko 35-70/3.5-4.5 is difficult to
focus" are, in my opinion, more valuable than "the 35-80/2.8 is better
because it has more A's in Gary's tests".
And then, we are taking about photography, mostly with an "artistic"
purpose. Professional photographers often use a filter to get the "scenic"
dark corners in their pictures. Why not use a single coated 50/1.4 to obtain
the same effect? ;-) The Field Guide of National Geographic (and the
magazine itself) shows many examples of beautiful pictures which are
certainly not of the A or even B level.
About the 28-48 zoom. I will post the specs of my specimen this evening.
However, I would be suprised if a lens with such a short production run is
redesigned. Maybe this lens suffers from specific mechanical problems,
causing a decrease in the optical quality. It is a cheap S-zoom. I have
never noticed a huge distortion with this lens, but I didn't tested it on
distortion either. Actually, besides the 16 mm the Zuiko 35-80 mm F2.8 is
the most distorting lens I have seen until now...
About the Colorplan 90/2.5. The grain of kodachrome 25 is easily visible
with this lens. So what's wrong with the resolution? However, it does matter
which type of screen you use. Many screens have a limited resolution (caused
by the texture of the screen), meaning you have to project very large to see
the grain of the film.
My 2c.
Bye,
Erwin Voogt
Utrecht, The Netherlands
http://members.nbci.com/_XMCM/photovoogt/index.html
|