>
> I had some experience when I sent my silver nosed 50/3.5 to Gary at his
> request for testing. The results were such that he refused to share them
> with me, and mentioned that he saw some sample and age (version)
> variations.
>
> Sadly, it is one of my first OM lenses, and I've shot a lot with it that I
> thought came out just fine.
>
My 50/3.5 is an ancient silver-nosed (of course) version which lacks much
contrast. It's almost hazy in its flatness. But sharpness is not a problem
with it. The flatness of contrast actually works out very well with B&W
film by helping to elevate shadow detail. It kinda reminds me of negs from
old Leica lenses.
As to sample variance, my original 200/4 wasn't the greatest lens, my
current one is. My new 24/2.8 is less sharp, I believe, than my old one,
but better behaved all the way around. Of course, we won't even discuss
100/2.8 variances...
I believe in testing lenses to know where the skeletons are buried. However,
it is critical, because of sample variance, that each of us test our own
lenses in the specific manner that we use the lenses to the greatest quality
level.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|