> Then again, mine is close to yours in serial number. I never did really
> understand the byzantine rules about serial
> numbers for the Magic. It seemed almost as if they were designed to only
> include one lens - why would that be? ;-)
1. It is entirely possible that there was some manufacturing variance
that resulted in a handful of lenses outperforming the design spec.
2. A lens/camera combination might just click with a particular
photographer who is able to respond to the unique messaging that the
lens wants to communicate.
I believe that both of these points apply to my 100/2.8. For some
reason, I just took to it like duck to water. I was able to see
something unusual and artsy about the lens right away and have never
been disappointed with it. Granted, there is the occasional bad bokeh
thing that will rear it's ugly head on Four-Thirds, but as a portrait
lens on the OM system, it is my golden child. I think that I've still
earned more income from that one lens than all of the rest combined.
My guess is that I've found the precise subject-camera distance that
maximizes the intangible qualities that this lens offers. In very
careful testing, I determined that for my most used apertures, there
is absolutely no measurable sharpness difference between it and the
100/2.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|