Those wonderful Olympus lenses...

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Knild, Feb 19, 2005.

  1. Knild

    Knild Guest

    Knild, Feb 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Knild

    Knild Guest


    You miss the point - there has been an awful lot of hoo-hah in the Oly forum
    about the expected new lenses from Olympus (expressed in the usual
    nauseating manner of the Askey forums - 'Sweeeeet', Awesome' etc etc) and a
    good deal of bashing anyone who demurs from the forum stance that
    Olympus-photographic-equipment-is-manufactured-in-heaven-by-Angels-and-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-just-a-demon-incarnate.

    One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
    prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
    have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
    seem to work very well!

    But, apparently not - and (as they doubtless chuckle in the Olympus
    boardroom) 'A foolish Olympus owner and his money are very easily parted"
     
    Knild, Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Knild

    Basic Wedge Guest

    No doubt about it, those shots do show signs of vignette. I wonder if the
    guy had any sort of filter mounted on his lens. Possibly he did, and
    possibly that was the cause.

    Technically good shots otherwise - absolutely no signs of "banding", so, at
    least, we can be certain they weren't taken with a 20D :)

    Rob
     
    Basic Wedge, Feb 19, 2005
    #3
  4. Knild

    Basic Wedge Guest

    Oh CRAP!

    I've done it again...

    I just pointed out 1 (one) of the _MANY_ flaws in Canon's 20D model, and all
    the Canon-loving trolls have scuttled back into the shadows like so many
    cockroaches. They just don't have much fortitude for this type of thing :)

    Rob (Canon FD user)
     
    Basic Wedge, Feb 20, 2005
    #4
  5. Knild

    Stacey Guest


    You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will tell
    you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
    line-up.This 'problem' is mainly at 54mm wide open as well.


    The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
    setting to compensate, which this newbie user didn't have turned on. Can't
    blame the camera when the users won't read the manual! :) Also unless the
    contrast is SUPER cranked it's hard to even see.

    You did leave out his coment:

    "I migrated south (in pixels that is) from the 20d and find the E-1
    enviroment just right! Wonderful camera and a pleasure to use."

    Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not going
    to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never going
    to use though..
     
    Stacey, Feb 20, 2005
    #5
  6. Knild

    Knild Guest

    Fair enough - but it's a 500 GBP 'dog', that's a lot of money to pay for a
    substandard lens.

    So, are you saying that Olympus were aware from the outset that the Four
    Thirds system had inherent problems, and built a compensation device into
    their camera?- what about the 300? - does that have the fault rectification
    built in as well?


    I'm posting purely as someone who is looking to buy a DSLR in the very near
    future - and who wants to get the best value for money (which means far more
    than just initial price) possible.
     
    Knild, Feb 20, 2005
    #6
  7. Knild

    Stacey Guest

    That's why I didn't buy it. But I think "substandard" is pretty harsh for a
    lens that has very minor vignetting at the long end wide open. Almost any
    zoom with this wide a range is going to have issues somewhere in it's range
    and how much does the canon/nikon f2.8 equiv lens cost? I bet it's not
    $500.

    I'm waiting for the 14-35 F2 to come in and even if it's $1500, I'll
    probably get one.

    The "system" doesn't have this problem, just looks like this one lens does
    at the long end of it's range. And IMHO if you look at "normal" images, you
    don't even see it. This guy cranked the contrast to maximum settings to see
    this, many said they have never noticed it. But yes it is there and
    probably why they put this setting in the camera menu.

    BTW here's how the canon 28-105 and 28-135 lenses rate to one user. The
    latter is a $400 lens/paperweight and both are a stop slower than the ZD
    lens is.

    =========
    http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm




    I encourage you to look at the images below for yourself, but here is how I
    interpret these images.


    Both lenses are pretty blurry at wide apertures at all focal lengths. For my
    purposes, neither of these lenses are usable at wide apertures. In fact, I
    was unable to find any combination of aperture and focal length where the
    edges were as sharp as the center.

    The Canon 28-135 seems to perform slightly better at 28mm, particularly at
    wide apertures, but still isn't very good. Given that I wouldn't want to
    use either lens at wide apertures, I consider this superiority to be of
    academic interest only.

    The Canon 28-105 is clearly better at 105mm. The edges in particular are
    much sharper using the Canon 28-105 lens than the Canon 28-135 lens. Even
    at F11, the edges of the Canon 28-135mm lens are considerably softer than
    the center.

    At 50mm, things seem pretty even. Both are soft at the edges wide open,
    although the center of the 28-135mm lens is slightly sharper at wide
    apertures.

    The canon 28-105 shows less contrast, and the images are slightly
    "warmer" (more of a red tint).

    Although this is not apparent from these test shots, I felt that the Canon
    28-135 was not uniform in its softness. At wide angle, the right edge of
    the image appears softer than the left. At longer focal lengths, the top of
    the image is softer than the the bottom. In contrast, the softness of the
    edges of the Canon 28-105 was roughly uniform. For these crops I picked
    areas from the softer edges of the Canon 28-135, so these may represent a
    "worst-case" scenario.
    =================


    Now that sounds/looks like some crappy optics to me! Did you see the test
    images? I think I could live with a touch of vignetting rather than a lens
    that's unusable wide open?

    Heres some test sniplets from the zuiko 11-22 ZD.

    http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/E300/11-22.html

    From wide open to f11, it works fine.


    If you want equal optical performance to the expencive zuiko's, you're going
    to have to buy the expencive Canon L glass. If you think the cheap or old
    skool optics are going to work good on a 20D or even a 10D, you're
    dreaming.



    You sure seem to be posting mainly olympus bashing posts. I'm not sure what
    you're point is? These work fine for some people, if you don't like their
    "features" buy something else. When I was looking, I wasn't posting canon
    or nikon bashing posts. This sort of posting smells like a troll to me.

    But anyway you sure sound like a perfect canidate for a canon. Have fun
    cleaning your sensor and using 20 year old optical designs!! :)
     
    Stacey, Feb 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Knild

    Skip M Guest

    Which flaw did you point out, and where did you point it out?
     
    Skip M, Feb 21, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.