Hi Joel and everybody else who responded about the 300.
I now have a much better idea of where it sits in relation to other lenses.
Possibly the one tested in Gary Reese's site was not up to snuff either.
Brian
> Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 09:54:53 -0600
> From: Joel Wilcox <jowilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Darklightimagery from Kentucky
>
> At 05:46 PM 2/3/2002 +1300, you wrote:
> >I wonder what the group think about variability in the Zuiko 300? I think the
> >strength of construction and ease of operation are great - I'm just wondering
> >about the glass.
> >
> >Brian
>
> Don't know about the variability. Do you mean inconsistent quality in the
> production run, or some such? I guess there have been a lot of them made
> over a
> long period. I would expect some to be better than others. It would be an
> easy
> bugger to wreck in an accident.
>
> To compare apples and oranges, my 300/4.5 is sharper than my former 200/4
> but not as sharp as my 180/2.8. With tubes it is good and sharp, though I am
> not always sure I enjoy the out of focus areas. There's a sort of "stars in
> motion" quality that's distracting. For me it works best when the subject is
> against a shadow or dark background.
>
> Joel W.
< 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 >
|