----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose"
>> ......
>> We are talking about net optical performance, not field performance.
> I'm not sure what you mean by "net optical performance". May be a
> language difficulty (Not a complaint!, My Chinese is much worse than
> your English.). To me, net means what's left after all "deductions", and
> so would be actual performance in practical use, as opposed to
> performance under ideal conditions, which would be the "pure" optical
> qualities of the lens.
>
Yes, I mean "pure optical qualities".
> In any case, field performance is what matters to me. Still, ideal tests
> show the upper limits of the possible with any lens.
Agreed.
> Well, it's not a practical issue for me, as I only have one of the
> lenses, and don't see myself acquiring a 180/2.8
>
Being a Canyon digital film owner, there are many other choices, the CA of
OM 180/2.8 is a show stopper for many people.
C.H.Ling
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|