I think this is interesting information.
I got the same lens for my F60, as part of a kit deal. The lens in question
(the Nikkor 35-80/f4.0-5.6) is often ridiculed and tarred with the same
brush as many other low cost, "budget" zooms.
I felt rather indifferent towards it when I got it, generally thinking like
all other did - such a cheap lens must be crappy. However, after shooting a
number of slides films with it, I feel that this lens is pretty underrated
in terms of sharpness. The look and feel of it makes me less impressed, but
somehow the "looseness" and insolidity of the lens doesn't show up in the
results...
I have also seen a few test ratings of it, and generally, these confirm my
belief - the lens isn't completely bad.
Anders Svensson
------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 13:13:18 PST
> From: Michael Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: 35/2 and 50/1.8 vs 35-80 for sharpness [v04.n160/15]
> Message: 15
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I bought a 35/2.0 and a 50/1.8 recently. They're both great
> lenses to use and I'm growing to love them already.
>
> However, I decided to do a simple test on them to compare their
> sharpness against a 35-80/4.0-5.6 zoom. I was expecting the
> primes to be noticeably sharper.
>
> I placed an open dictionary on a chair. The lenses were mounted
> on an N2020 (F501), all set at f/8 aperture. I manually focussed
> for each shot (using the electronic rangefinder of the N2020 as an
> aid) and used an SB-26 bounced off the ceiling for lighting, as it
> was indoors at night. The film was Fuji Superia Reala ISO 100.
>
> I got 4x6 prints and examined them under a Peak 10x Loupe. This
> is an effective 42x enlargement of the negative. To my amazement,
> I could detect no real difference in sharpness between the primes
> and the zoom. The 50mm prime seemed a tiny bit sharper than the
> zoom set to 50mm and the zoom set to 35mm seemed a tiny bit sharper
> than the 35mm prime! Note that the zoom had a slight disadvantage,
> as its max aperture is f/4.0 and so was harder to focus than the
> primes.
>
> I was both amazed and disappointed (for my primes; it has given me
> new faith in my 35-80mm zoom).
>
> Do these results make sense? Has technology brought zooms to the
> point where they're not really less sharp than (expensive) primes?
> I know the primes are faster and allow low-light photography, but
> using sharpness as the only criterion, is there any real
> difference anymore?
>
> Anybody care to comment.
>
>
> Bye,
> Mike
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.NetworX.ie
> - ---
