keith_w wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> 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 agree with William, or at least what I see as the thrust of his
position. It does indeed seem to be a test of non-macro lenses for macro
use. Reading the whole quote, however, it seems to be taking a position
about which lenses were "better", without specifying it was "better at
doing something they weren't designed to do."
It's sort of like testing motorcycles as vehicles for carrying building
materials. No matter which is best, none will be good at it. And the one
best at the test may well be the worst at it's actual designed purpose.
Based on the information at hand, it all sounds like the test, whether
"valid" by some criteria or not, was a silly waste of time.
> I see the quote marks, William, but who was it you were quoting?\
>
William was replying to a post by Mike Bloor, but deleted the
attribution of the quote in Mike's post:
--------------------------------------
I don't know about the 50mm F1.4 lenses, but in Ivor Mantale's
"Collecting and Using Classic SLR cameras", he has this to say on the
F1.8s. This is a caption for a photograph -
--------------------------------------
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|