Good gracious Andrew, that's aweful! I can see why you have been
unhappy with your 14-45, but as others have stated, I wonder if yours isn't a
poor-performing example. Which raises the question: How do you convince Olympus
that the lens is bad and should be replaced? Certainly your photos are strong
evidence but are they going to accept it.
Your examples make me want to do my own side-by-side tests. Too bad I
sold my 50/3.5.
Charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Andrew Fildes
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:41 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] 14-45mm vs 50mm 3.5 macro
Yeah, I know it's not fair but I really wanted to see what the E-330
sensor could do and so put the old OM 50mm f3.5 macro in B-mode
against the bloody kit lens. Now, you tell me. I would have liked to
try the DZ 50/2 but it wasn't available.
http://www.pbase.com/afildes/image/55877883
http://www.pbase.com/afildes/image/55877884
Available light, tripod, 200 ISO, around 1/8 sec. They are both a
crop from the centre and about 50% of the original image area.
B-mode is slow but with the 10X magnification focus check it is
accurate.
The kit lens is not only soft but looks muddy as well.
AndrewF
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|