AFAIK all 35-70 zooms share the phenomeneon of barrel distorion on the
short end with the 35-80, the 35-70/3.6 having slighly less distortion
than the others in wide position (my personal opinion). Isn't this
more or less usual, being a necessary compromise when designing a
wide-to-short-tele zoom lens around the 50mm central position?
But I think that he picture Olav made shows a bit of wavelike
distortion too (especially visible on 'ground-level'. I have never
noticed it with my instance of the 35-80.
And although I didn't investigate this scientifically or in depth, I
also suspect the distortion of Olav's lens to be more pronounced than
that of mine...
How do other 35-80 lenses compare?
Frank van Lindert
Utrecht NL.
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:17:28 -0000, "Olaf Greve"
<olaf_greve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have a little demonstration of a nasty surprise I had lately. After Hans
>van Veluwen and Erwin Voogt kept trying to convince me that the Zuiko
>35-80/2.8 gives more (perspectively) distorted pictures than the 16/3.5
>(just kidding, of course!). I decided to do a simple test by shooting a
>picture of a brick wall at 35mm.
>The results, which will not be liked by 35-80/2.8 owners can be seen here:
>http://www.millennics.com/olympus/various/35-80.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 >
|