I've probably shown this here before but here goes again
<http://www.chucknorcutt.com/dust%20spec%20test/index.htm>
There are two images here taken with my Minolta A1. The A1 has an f/2.8
lens and uses a 49mm filter. I don't have the camera with me but would
guess the clear aperture at about 45mm.
One of the shots is with an unobstructed lens. The other has a 1/2"
square piece of electrical tape stuck in the middle of it and
obstructing about 10% of the surface area. Probably much less area than
the gouge you were talking about.
The third image on the page is a paired 1:1 pixel view of the flower
details from both shots. Can you tell the difference? Maybe. Could
you tell the difference at 50% rather than 100%. I doubt it.
Chuck Norcutt
On 3/12/2012 10:20 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
>>
>> Cool story. Too bad about the 28-90 but if you really
>> want it for a working lens (as opposed to a shelf queen)
>> you can probably fill that gouge with India ink.
>> Observers of the lens will know something is wrong but
>> there's a good chance that observers of the images it
>> produces won't know it at all.
>>
>
> I looked at it longingly, wondering if the gouge would impair the
> images as I had seen online demonstrations of even worse damage being
> unnoticable. But when I saw the 28-105mm for just $15 it was all over.
>
> There was an easily repairable 28-90mm on eBay yesterday. The price
> rocketed to about $45 five hours before closing, but this morning I saw that
> it sold for around $22. Someone must have withdrawn a bid, but it doesn't
> appear in the bidding history.
>
>
> Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|