Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 24/2 (was: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?)

Subject: Re: 24/2 (was: [OM] 28/2 or 35/2?)
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:24:01 +0800
----- Original Message -----
From: <plp@xxxxxxxx>

> >Ok, here is some samples from my Europe trip in 92'.
> >http://www.accura.com.hk/OM/Z24.htm
> >The top left one shown the waveform distortion, that is the
> >worse case you will found and it can be avoided if more care-
> >fully when taking the shot.
>
> That is some nasty waveform distortion.  I think I will look
> for a 24/2.8 instead.  Gary's tests are vindicated once again.
>
>
> Pete

In the pass I was very concern about distortion (that is why I missed the
chance of buying a like new 40/2 at $80 in 1988, the distrotion of this lens
was reported to be 1.3%). Now I know besides distortion there are much more
other things too. I once own the 24/2.8 but finally I keep the 24/2 , one of
the reason is the large aperture that allow you to make accurate focus
easier.

C.H.Ling


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz