Assuming that most of these focal lengths are used for landscape, how critical is wide open performance? From personal experience, most of my landscape work is f8 or smaller.
Are folks paying premium for the capability which is barely used.
His tests were done at f8. I can do some corner posts. I did not save any of my images but can easily redo them. The Z21 and Zuiko 21mm were extremely similar in the corners at f8.
Wow. Step out for a long lunch and all #e!! breaks loose -- I thought Mike was going to release this tonight AFTER I had a chance to fix a martini and relax before adding my comments
Not a lot to add really, though again there is one important point Mike overlooked mentioning that might help explain WHY we acquired so many copies to test. Actually, he probably did not want to open up another Pandora's box after the heat he took on the 24-shift results...
It turns out there are THREE versions (and maybe 4) of the Olympus Zuiko 21/3.5. There is an original version that was single-coated, a second version that was supposedly multi-coated (though we cannot confirm this and the ones we think we own that are second versions have coatings that look very similar to the earliest versions we own -- yellow-ish-gold) and a later version that was again multi-coated but with a different style multi-coating (purple-green-blue). Moreover, we had heard that the older versions were supposed to be sharper -- hand assembled and hand calibrated before realease while the newer ones were machine calibrated -- again, we found no concrete support of this, only conjecture.
Sooooo, bottom line is we scooped up as many as we could in an effort to determine which were going to be "best" for our needs. As it turns out, there is no significant correlation between coatings and performance -- and as Mike has already stated, even the poorest Oly was not too different from the best. In fact, one evening Mike and spent about three hours and two martinis each arguing over the relative rankings of these 21's; they are all very close! (Mark was sorry he missed that meeting.)
I will also add that this series of testing all began simply because I REFUSED to pay $3K+ for a CZ 21 but wanted a decent 21 at areasonable price. I stumbled upon an Oly 21, tried it, and shared the results with Mike, Mark and Guy to confirm what I thought I was seeing -- great performance from the tiny little lens. Mike and Mark have CZ's and live nearby, so getting a group of these together to test became possible -- and seeing my initial results, the others were curious too. It did not hurt that the Oly was so tiny compared to the CZ either!
As for "motives"... Bottom line is I'm keeping one and maybe a spare and the rest are mostly spoken for by friend's and family too. Like Mike, I may end up with two I can part with after we complete all our testing. Even if I turn a small profit on the few copies I sell, it will never offset the investment of time we expended testing them -- unless perhaps you think $6/hour is good wages
Mike is too much of a class act to complain about the insinuations being hurled his way here -- in HIS thread, providing free information it took him and Jack a long time to compile. But I personally find it totally inappropriate and shameful. --c
The only way I could see a crime here is if someone mis-represented their test data to make some sort of gain, be it financial or otherwise. What was done here was generous and totally legit. The merits of the discussion in this thread should be on photography and/or gear. I totally support Mike, Guy and Jack on this one. mark
Many thanks Mike, Jack, and Guy for sharing your findings with the FM community. It really shows the passion you guys have for photography in general, and the tools you use to achieve your vision in particular.
One thing that I've perhaps missed in this thread...would Mike or Jack please share with us the AVERAGE price they paid for this lens? Just curious as to what the used market was prior to this review.
Excellent read. I think there is a Zuiko 21 3.5 down at out local camera/drugstore. Can't be for sure but they have lots of used older cameras and lenses. Anyway...
Question: Has the Nikkor 20 3.5 been tested? I used to shoot Nikon and had a Nikkor 20 3.5 UD ( with the 72mm filter thread ). I loved that lens and after looking at some pics I'm wondering where this lens fits with the ones tested. I'm curious because those Nikkor 20 3.5 UD's are cheap--now anyway
Taz wrote:
One thing that I've perhaps missed in this thread...would Mike or Jack please share with us the AVERAGE price they paid for this lens? Just curious as to what the used market was prior to this review.
Just as a point of reference, in the 20th March 2004 issue of Amateur Photographer, one retailer had a selection of Zuiko 21mm f/3.5 lenses ranging from £325 to £445, depending on condition. 15 months later, today, I picked up a mint copy from another retailer for £399, so a very similar price to that of 15 months ago.
It would be nice to see some tests of some other Zuikos, such as the 85/2 or 28/2. (come to think of it, I think I still own these along with the 21/3.5 and others )
BTW it has long been no secret that the 21/3.5 is a great performer image wise, more so then the much more expensive in its day 21/2.
Re: prices and profits. This is free market at work. An item is worth what the market will bear. As long as people are willing to fork out multiple Ks for these lenses, it will sell. Remember the Dot Com boom?
I do also wonder at what point the differences in corner sharpness makes sense. To use an analogy a honda accord is more than adequate to take me from point A to B in reasonable comfort and handle the highway speeds of 70mph. Tests will show a BMW with much better handling and ability to do 120mph. But I can't do that here in the US. Its another thing if you are on the autobahns. Even then it gets into exotic territory when the discussion moves to a Carrera GT.
Taz wrote:
One thing that I've perhaps missed in this thread...would Mike or Jack please share with us the AVERAGE price they paid for this lens? Just curious as to what the used market was prior to this review.
-Dean
Didn't Mike just say they paid around $500 for their copies
stevei wrote:
[I picked up a mint copy from another retailer for £399, so a very similar price to that of 15 months ago. sapro wrote:
Did I just see a bunch of them priced at £349 To me, it's still too expensive...
The place I got mine from still has several listed at £345, but in slightly worse condition than the one I got. I agree, it's pretty expensive, but it's the same price they were over a year ago, and I'm just happier buying from a retailer, I hate the bidding frenzy thing. There's also one retailer who has the Zuiko 24mm shift lens listed for £1750, and they had what is almost certainly the very same lens listed at the same price 15 months ago.
sapro wrote:
Didn't Mike just say they paid around $500 for their copies
I must have missed that Sapro...thanks.
I've also seen prices around 350GBP (sorry, don't know how to do the symbol for British currency). While this is high because it's a retail shop's price, I just wanted to get an idea if it was in the ballpark.
And, Guy...that's a heckuva nice thing to do to drop out of the bidding, buddy. I'd already seen your bidding trail on that auction! But even with you dropping out, I suspect there will be plenty more folks to take your place. In other words, I don't think Ebay is going to be a good source anymore for some of these exotics. It looks like it takes being a bit creative to find the right deal these days.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
This is the fun part for a hobbyist go find them , track them down.
Getting lucky is fun.
Yeah...I was going to add that to the end of my post, actually. It *IS* a kick to root around and find a bargain. Especially when one turns up in an unusal place.
