Remember folks, the E-1 + ZD lenses has "lens shading compensation", in
which the lens tells the camera just how it vignettes. This can then be
compenstaed for either in the camera - very slow - or in RAW conversion.
Not that it matters to me, but perhaps you ZDheads should specify
whether or not this feature was used when talking about vignetting in ZD
lenses, so you are on the same page.
Now if you were a lens designer trying to find that elusive best formula
for balancing all the many lens characteristics, and you knew that the
camera design could automatically compensate for vignetting, and you
didn't know how impractical it would turn out to be, might you not be
tempted to compromise in favor of a bit more vignetting and a bit less
of some other limitation?
The 14-54 was designed before the camera was finalized. The 7-14 design
was at least finalized well after the camera was out. Coincidence that
one vignettes and the other doesn't???
Moose
James Royall wrote:
>I'm really surprised at the fall off of the 14-54 at the long end.
>I've taken headshots of everyone at work against a white background
>for the website and it's really very noticeable. I'd be interested to
>know if people don't find this as it might mean I've a problem with
>my lens. I can post an example for comparison.
>
>James
>
>On 30 Jul 2005, at 15:33, Mark Dapoz wrote:
>
>
>
>>You mean Olympus was right in choosing the 4/3 format over 35mm format?
>>Imagine that :-) The ZD 7-14mm has no, I repeat *no*, light fall- off at the
>>edges of the frame, even at 7mm f4. Here's an example shot at 9mm f8:
>>
>>http://olympus.dementia.org/misc/ZD7-14_9mm_f8.jpg
>>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
