Cholernie ciekawe - testy dwoch 50/1.8
50/1.8 MCv2 to ostatnia wersja tego obiektywu, plastikowy pierscien
przyslony, made in Japan z przodu, numer seryjny na bagnecie, bagnet
dwuczesciowy.
BTW: okazalo sie, ze ten kod na bagnecie (np u mnie SAF2) to kod produkcji,
ale nikt nie wie dokladnie o co chodzi, pierwsza (albo diwe pierwsze) to
fabryka, potem miesiac i rok, ale nikt nic nie wie, doklandie nic nie
wiadomo...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Reese" <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:46 PM
Subject: [OM] Lens Tests: 50mm f/1.8 Zuiko (multi-coated, late "Made in
Japan" variant)
> Anyone else notice how the market value of a multi-coated 50mm f/1.4
> Zuiko shot up and has stayed higher than an "single coated" after I
> posted SQF test results on one? Also contributing to that were the
> articles in Photo Techniques and Petersen's Photographic about seeking
> out multi-coated Zuikos. Well, lets see what happens now that I have
> replicated data on a 50mm f/1.8 Zuiko (multi-coated, late "Made in
> Japan" variant) using mirror and diaphragm prefire testing.
>
> Here is the data. Most interesting is that the optimum aperture is f/4
> vs. f/5.6 in the 50mm f/1.4 That was quite unexpected! I also shot at
> f/1.8 with an Olympus 1A filter that "passed" a vertical autocollimator
> test. There was no detectable contrast difference with and without
> filter, but resolution was slightly lower with one. However, the lens
> was refocused after attaching the filter, so the difference could always
> be the result of focusing inaccuracy.
>
> OM-2S with mirror and auto diaphragm prefire, serial number 3694244,
> paired comparison with sample below to examine potential production
> variation; identical coating
> Vignetting = C- @ f/1.8, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
> Distortion = slight barrel
> Aperture Center Corner
> f/1.8 B C
> f/2.8 A- B+
> f/4 A+ A
> f/5.6 A A-
> f/8 A A-
> f/11 A- B+
> f/16 B+ B
> Notes: High contrast at f/1.8 to f/2.8 and f/11 to f/16, very high
> contrast at f/4 to f/8.
>
> OM-2S with mirror and auto diaphragm prefire, serial number 5235157,
> paired comparison with sample above to examine potential production
> variation; identical coating
> Vignetting = C @ f/1.8, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
> Distortion = slight barrel
> Aperture Center Corner
> f/1.8* B C-
> f/1.8 B+ C
> f/2.8 A B-
> f/4 A+ A-
> f/5.6 A A-
> f/8 A A-
> f/11 A- B+
> f/16 A- B+
> Notes: Moderately high contrast at f/2.8 and f/8 to f/16, high contrast
> at f/1.8, very high contrast at f/4 to f/5.6. * = with an Olympus 1A
> filter that "passed" a vertical autocollimator test; lens was refocused
> after attaching the filter; no detectable contrast difference with and
> without filter.
>
> Having looked at quite a few Nikon AI/AIS, Canon FD and Olympus OM
> 50-55mm primes, I can confidently say that across the board, Nikkors
> have the highest contrast, Zuikos second and Canon third. The Olympus
> 50mm f/3.5 and 250mm f/2 look like Nikkors in the contrast department.
> Some Nikkor zooms look more like Zuikos and Canon almost always seems
> flat in comparison to a similar focal length Nikkor or Zuiko. Canon had
> very aggressive marketing and their lens line-up shows they wanted to
> fill most every focal length or focal range niche with something. They
> seemed to market designs that weren't necessarily optical feats d'rigor
> (pardon my French). As if someone in corporate was saying: "enough
> [design time] is enough, let's just get it to market before Nikon and
> Tamron beat us to it." Then they seemed to drop them from production
> just as fast. In contrast, Nikon and Olympus kept designs on the market
> for longer.
>
> Some Nikkors (like the 85mm f/1.4, 55mm f/2.8) are quite simply world
> class optics, bar none. But some of their zooms are clearly inferior to
> primes, as Moose Petersen usually notes. All in all, Olympus put out
> some fantastic lenses that shouldn't leave users lusting for exotic
> glass designs from Tamron, or the newest autofocusing designs from Canon
> or Nikon. Consumers today are getting less optical quality for more
> money than in the 1980s, even adjusted for inflation. To get Zuiko
> quality, you have to pay substantially more in an AF lens. Since AF
> systems aren't accurate enough to capture more than 50 lines per mm
> resolution, why pay premiums for luxury AF lenses???
>
> My recommendation on a 50mm Zuiko, all measures considered: avoid
> filters and use a multicoated 50mm f/1.4 for photography at f/2~2.8, and
> an MCv2 50mm f/1.8 for f/4~16. At f/1.2~2: no standouts, so you are
> probably better off using faster film so you can stop down to at least
> f/2. But for world class performance, I'll pick a 55mm f/2.8 Micro
> Nikkor AIS. Heresy, eh? No, just splitting hairs on a Technical Pan neg.
>
> Gary Reese
> Las Vegas, NV
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|