Ha! I knew it! I've been saying so all along since I posted about that
first sample,
where the 17mm at f/6.3 looked simply awful.
What a poor, poor showing for what should have been something special.
On 08 Aug 2009, at 6:37 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> 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
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|