Gary;
Good points. I did look at the test results on Pauls' site and the 100-200 has
'EX' ratings at the corners at all apertures. Maybe they 'over-designed' this
one? Maybe this one sample was better than others? Ken reports loads of barrel
distortion. The test says 1.13%, which I guess is relatively high. For
comparison, the 85-250 shows '<1%' and the 35-105 has '0.7%'
The parallel is also interesting, as I have corresponded on the Mamiya list
with a
Danny Gonzales from New York, who has modified a 250/2 Zuiko to fit his 645,
with
excellent results. Although it does not cover the full frame of course.
george
PCACala@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi all:
>
> For optical formulas borrowed from the Olympus Pen Fx line, note that they
> only had to cover a 18 x 24 mm frame. On an OM they are covering a 24 x 36 mm
> frame. The bottom line is that on an OM there is more image making demand
> being placed on these lenses, outside the originally intended circle of
> coverage. A parallel would be fitting a 350 mm f/2.8 Zuiko to a Mamiya M645
> (if it works). The edge definition then becomes suspect.
>
> 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 >
|