Marc Lawrence wrote:
>> Moose wrote:
>> [...]
>> The Zuiko has almost the reverse history. Legend, and a Gary
>> Reese test not on his site of an AG(?) very early, slightly
>> radioactive 50/1.4, say that these earliest 50/1.4s were very
>> sharp in the center, but not so good in the corners. The next
>> bunch, through some unknown place in the SC era, were competent,
>> but run of the mill lenses. [...]
>>
>
> Mine is probably one of those run of the mill lenses. I think
> it's in the 500,000 or 600,000 range. Saying that, it's also
> my favourite, and I've produced more sharp and decent (by
> my standards) photos from it (and the OM1, with Kodak C41 Black
> and White film) than anything else (being knocked into me,
> as we speak, as I scan all of my film stuff in, going back
> quite a few years now).
>
You may notice that I was intentionally a little fuzzy about the SC
lenses after the early period. I wasn't around when the founding list
members were doing all the research and testing and thins is one area
where Gay's tests are no help; he only tested one SC 50/1.4, didn't note
the serial number and only tested it with OM-1 and mirror lock-up. So
there is neither a test with aperture pre-fire nor any early to late
comparison.
Somehow, though, I've picked up the idea that there was a significant
change during the middle-late SC production and that, other than missing
the benefits of MC, late SC lenses were similar to early MC lenses. So
yours is one more datum squirreled away in this swamp I call my memory.
Unfortunately, I"m mnot aware of any successful efort to connect serial
numbers to the changes evidenced in the blow-up drawings of the
successive versions of the lens. And there may have been small changes
that made a significant difference and weren't memorialized with a new
version/drawing.
> This means to me:
>
> - that "run of the mill" is still very good to excellent
> in a 50mm prime relative to a large portion of every other
> lens you might get, or
>
> - my standards at 8x12" print size aren't as high as others, or
>
> - the other factors (camera, film, focal length, etc.) are more
> important to me (unconsciously) than the overall sharpness, or
>
> - a combination of all the above plus other stuff I haven't
> really thought about because I'm not that clued up, and
> am inherently too lazy to worry too much on, or
>
> - I'm trying to convince myself of this to discourage myself
> for hunting sharper equipment to feed to addiction. ;-)
>
> Regardless, the unique nature of the above is probably of no
> help to anyone, so if you've read this far, then more fool
> you. :-D
>
It all makes sense to me. Sounds sane and practical. If I have a lens
that's giving me the results I like, why not keep using it and refrain
from fretting.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|