From the writeup, both are real dogs. Dpreview of courses uses very
diplomatic language, but if the 14-42 is significantly inferior to the
regular version of this lens, and if the 17mm provides no advantages
over the zoom in terms of image quality, then this is a polite way of
saying that these two lenses are simply awful.
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
On Aug 8, 2009, at 2:44 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Hmmm. Neither lens comes anywhere close to the Nyquist limit for the
> sensor at any focal length or aperture. That may be the first time
> I've
> seen that.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> Moose wrote:
>> Tests of the 17/2.8 and 14-42mm micro4/3 Zuikos.
>> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusep1/page21.asp>
>>
>> Moose
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|