This subject has always been a bit of a quandary for me, i.e., lenses
that *can* do something, but *cannot* do it well. Close focus is a
good example. A lot of zooms boast "macro" focusing, but produce poor
results even when stopped down. This seems most prevalent in those
that use a tube extension arrangement for "macro".
Of course, for a lot of companies, it's all about marketing, not quality . . .
ScottGee1
On 10/10/06, William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "The mechanism of my Waltham pocket watch. This is, in fact, one of
> a series of five similar shots taken with a succession of M42 cameras
> and lenses to demonstrate the point that there is not as much
> difference as photographers imagine between the results obtained
> under controlled conditions from expensive lenses and those
> delivered by simple lenses. At a Photographic Collectors Club of Great
> Britain regional meeting during the autumn of 1994, I produced four
> 12" x 16" enlargements of shots of this watch taken with a 50mm
> f/2.9 Meritar, a 50mm f/2.8 Domiplan, a 50mm f/2.8 Tessar and a
> 55mm f/1.8 Super-Takumar, all on the same film with identical
> lighting, processing and exposure. I also produced the lenses and
> asked some twenty members to say which shot came from which
> lens. The Super-Takumar was undeniably the sharpest when viewed
> very carefully, but there was little difference between any of them,
> and nobody provided a completely correct answer, despite generally
> held views about each of the lenses. Lack of time had prevented me
> from printing this fifth version, which subsequently proved to be even
> sharper than that from the Super-Takumar."
>
> This is not a valid test. None of these lenses is specifically corrected for
> close focusing.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|