Conditions and usage may vary by user as may definition about whether it is
noticeable. A critical eye deliberately looking for any minute trace of
falloff can usually find it with nearly any lens in nearly any photograph. :-)
Not noticeable (to me):
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om52.html
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om60.html
(an "establishing shot" which I should redo using the 24mm,
35mm shift or a different perspective)
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om82.html
Very noticeable:
http://johnlind.tripod.com/oly/gallery/om57.html
(the very nature of the subject material enhances the falloff)
All are uncropped without any manipulation to correct for falloff (attempts
at it with some images have never been successful). I have others that
fall between these two groups; they just happen to be what has been scanned.
-- John
At 05:39 7/21/01, C.H. Ling wrote:
Agree on all except the falloff, it is not noticeable only under certain
conditions.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The 18/3.5 is an exceptional lens, although it is a rectilinear (the
widest
> one of the Zuiko's), not a fisheye. I've found mine has zero detectable
> distortion, with decent resolution and good contrast. There is some
> falloff, but no more than should be expected from a lens this wide, and
> it's noticeable only under certain lighting/subject conditions.
>
> -- John
< 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 >
|