jcolwell wrote:
Here's the Oly 24/2.8 serial number information that I compiled and posted here, back in 2009. As mentioned earlier, both my Canon EF 24/2.8 and SMC Pentax 24/2.8 were better than my Oly 24/2.8 MC. The EF and Oly were tested on both 5D and 20D, the SMCP on 20D only.
Zuiko MC (black nose, multicoated)
OLYMPUS OM-SYSTEM ZUIKO MC AUTO-W 1:2.8 f=24mm nnnnnn
183471 oldest <>
191330 newest
Zuiko (black nose, multicoated, but not marked with MC)
OLYMPUS OM-SYSTEM ZUIKO AUTO-W 24mm 1:2.8 nnnnnn Japan
189782 oldest
2239xx newest
Notes:
1. S/N overlap between the two newest versions!
2. Thanks to David Earls for supplying S/N update info....Show more →
I'm not for one minute doubting your findings, and I'm not a great believer in the proverbial sample variation disavowal (unless there's something very wrong with the way a particular lens has been assembled), so maybe we look for different things in a lens? On the 16-9 site, the 24mm Zuiko is clearly much better than the Pentax A and the Sigma on those parameters that were tested that matter to me (corners, control of aberrations), but maybe you were looking for things when you used the Pentax and Canon that I'm not and in a way your experience and my perception reflect the fact that there are many ways to look at lens performance - there's no lens that's absolutely better than all other equivalent lenses on every conceivable parameter. I don't know, but this is the only way I can explain how my perception based on what I've seen on 16-9 is so different from yours as owning some of these lenses...
ayler wrote:
I'm not for one minute doubting your findings, and I'm not a great believer in the proverbial sample variation disavowal (unless there's something very wrong with the way a particular lens has been assembled), so maybe we look for different things in a lens? ...
I agree. There's no accounting for tastes and expectations.
OTOH, both the EF 24/2.8 and SMCP 24/2.8 had better optical performance than the Oly (and Nikon, and others), using the USAF 1951 lens resolution test chart and 'standard test procedures', including tripod, MLU, cable release, etc.
On the 5D, the EF 24/2.8 was sharper than the Oly in the centre and corners, at f/2.8 and f/4. They both reached or exceeded the 5D sensor resolution (78 ppi) at f/8 in the center. The EF 24/2.8 was sharper than the Oly in the corners at f/8.
On the 20D, the Canon and SMCP were both sharper than the Oly in the centre and corners at f/2.8, and they were all about the same at f/8 (f/4 wasn't tested).
jcolwell wrote:
I agree. There's no accounting for tastes and expectations.
OTOH, both the EF 24/2.8 and SMCP 24/2.8 had better optical performance than the Oly (and Nikon, and others), using the USAF 1951 lens resolution test chart and 'standard test procedures', including tripod, MLU, cable release, etc.
On the 5D, the EF 24/2.8 was sharper than the Oly in the centre and corners, at f/2.8 and f/4. They both reached or exceeded the 5D sensor resolution (78 ppi) at f/8 in the center. The EF 24/2.8 was sharper than the Oly in the corners at f/8.
On the 20D, the Canon and SMCP were both sharper than the Oly in the centre and corners at f/2.8, and they were all about the same at f/8 (f/4 wasn't tested)....Show more →
Might it be that the Zuiko performs a lot better close to infinity, as per 16-9's tests, than on a resolution chart, which will be placed much closer (it may suffer from pronounced field curvature mid-range)? From what I've concluded reading here and there, the ZK Distagon 25mm is also pretty pedestrian on a test chart and yet it metamorphoses into a beauty as a far field lens (it's been optimised for that, apparently). Could it be that, maybe?
ayler wrote:
Might it be that the Zuiko performs a lot better close to infinity, as per 16-9's tests, than on a resolution chart, which will be placed much closer (it may suffer from pronounced field curvature mid-range)? From what I've concluded reading here and there, the ZK Distagon 25mm is also pretty pedestrian on a test chart and yet it metamorphoses into a beauty as a far field lens (it's been optimised for that, apparently). Could it be that, maybe?
Sure, that's possible. It's equally possible that sample variation and adapter fidelity are responsible.
