Thanks!
I have a Tiffen UV filter on it, I will take some test shots with the filter
removed, and the lens well cleaned before the shot. Again, I have heard
praise about this lens, and I just don't see it... I'm willing to try
anything though..
I think it's MC.
Great suggestion, I didn't think of it.. Much appreciated, and thanks for
listenin' to my half ramblings..
Albert
----- Original Message -----
From: "dreammoose" <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Zuiko 24mm/2.8 vs 28mm/2.
> I've been 'listening' to this endless chatter about Albert's 28/2.8 with
> half an ear. It occurs to me that there are 2 questions I haven't
> noticed being asked.
> 1. Is it SC or MC? It appears from the SIF that the 28/2.8 came as both,
> although I've also heard it is only MC.
> 2. Was it used with a 'protective' filter, like a Skylight or UV filter?
> A bad filter can make a good lens look bad and you can't tell about the
> filter just by looking at it.
> All 'testing' of lenses should be done without a filter first or with a
> filter vs. non filter comparison.
> This is from Gary Reese's lens tests:
>
> 50mm f/1.4 Zuiko (multi-coated)
> OM-2000 with mirror and diaphram prefire; lens with >1,100,000
> serial number
> Vignetting = D @ f/1.4, B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A @ f/4
> Distortion = none
>
> No filter
> Aperture Center Corner
> f/1.4 B B
> f/2 A- B
> f/2.8 A A-
> f/4 A A
> f/5.6 A A-
> f/8 A- A-
> f/11 A- A-
> f/16 B+ B+
> Notes: High contrast, except moderate in center at f/1.4, moderately low
> in corners at f/1.4 and moderate in corners at f/16; remarkably even
> performance across all apertures.
>
> With poorly made Vivitar VMC ND3 neutral density filter
> Aperture Center Corner
> f/1.4 C- C
> f/2 C C
> f/2.8 B B
> f/4 B B+
> f/5.6 A- A-
> f/8 A- A-
> f/11 A- A-
> f/16 B+ B+
> Notes: Differences are significant at the 1/3 grade level in this paired
> comparison evaluation. Contrast was slightly lower with the filter, but
> lower resolution was the most important factor in image deterioriation.
> Please note that this particular filter is not indicative of Vivitar or
> Vivitar VMC filters, in general. It just tested as a poor sample. Other
> filter makers, even the most highly regarded, have been found to have
> poor samples in selections taken from used and new stocks of filters.
> The use of the term "poor" means star test images, viewed on
> a vertical auto collimeter, which show images that are: multiple and
> overlapping, fuzzy, off center, and images which rotate when the lens
> is rotated. More often than not, only one of these faults are found in
> an examined filter. These filters (including the test filter) often look
> perfectly good when examined without the aid of instrumentation!
>
> OT-Philosophy content: You can't tell a lens by it cover.
>
> Moose
>
> Olympus wrote:
>
> >I do keep that in mind Chip, so I'm getting rid of "this" 28mm/2.8, not
> >going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.. It doesn't mean I think
> >all Zuiko's suck, and will never buy one again.. But it's my hopes that
my
> >28mm or 24mm will be razor sharp... regardless of brand..
> >
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|