William Sommerwerck 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.
Test of what?
Might it have been a test to determine which NON-macro lens would perform well
under "macro" circumstances?
Because that was what he ended up doing, as I read it.
I see the quote marks, William, but who was it you were quoting?\
Did he tester use extension tubes, or what?
Lots unsaid in the text you quoted.
Just curious.
Also, what was the UN-tested lens?
keith whaley
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|