Bill Pearce wrote:
> It is certainly possible that Sigma could, and may make fine lenses......
>
> Any more, who knows? Certainly the kit lenses for today's DSLR's set new
> lows for camera manufacturer badged lenses.
This blanket statement is really inaccurate - and unfair to Oly, at
least (Larry?).
The new ZD 14-42 kit lens just received something close to a rave review
in Pop Photo, including excellent performance and: "the amply sized
manual focus and zoom collars have extremely well damped turning
action...manual focusing is very fine by today's standards, with a
turning radius almost twice as long as the comparable 18-55 mm
Nikkor..." "... this lens seems to do the impossible: The more the
engineers remove, the better it gets!"
So the latest Oly kit lens is smaller, lighter and performs better than
the last one. And the last one was a decent lens, not a piece of junk.
> My biggest concern is that lens designers no longer feel it necessary to try
> to eliminate things like vignetting and barrel and pincushion distortion, as
> it can be "eliminated" by software.
>
To stay on theme for a moment, distortion in the 14-42 is lower than the
14-45 and vignetting is gone by one stop down at 14 mm and non-existent
at 25 and 42 mm in the test.
In a broader sense, I think you are making something good, a broad range
of choice, into something bad. All of these makers sell lenses which
strive, and generally succeed, in achieving high levels of optical
performance in vignetting and distortion, as well as other measures.
Those lenses, not surprisingly, are not cheap. In addition, they offer
other lenses that offer smaller size and lower prices in return for
lower levels of performance in some areas, like vignetting and
distortion. So just don't buy the ones you don't like.
And another thing has been going on. Contemporary kit lenses are
generally better than their predecessors in the basics of sharpness
across the frame and aperture and zoom ranges. Looked at compared to
more expensive lenses, the Canyon 18-55 kit lens isn't particularly
impressive, although not as bad as you may think, if you haven't
researched it. Looked at in terms of overall IQ compared to earlier kit
lenses for 35 mm, it is a paragon. In performance/$, it's outstanding.
No, I opted not to get one in favor of better/different lenses, but I
did consider it.
Another choice that's new in recent years is price vs. (apparent?)
durability. In film days, a 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 from any given maker were
of about equal physical quality, with the difference in price buying
speed and optical quality. That's changed. The Canyon 50/1.8 is, as far
as I can see, all plastic but for the lens elements. It looks and feels
cheap - and is, in fact, remarkably inexpensive. In the past, a lens
with this apparent build quality could be pretty reliably expected to
work as a lens much like the bottom of a soda bottle.
BUT, the lens is optically first rate. And for me, the trade off of
lower weight, less $, smaller size and less than a stop slower vs. the
f1.4, but with almost no optical performance price to be paid, is a
great one. I'm relatively easy on my equipment and small and light are
important to me. And if I do happen to drop and step on it, and can't
just snap it back together, I'm out $75.
Changes in materials and technology have changed the landscape, but not
for the worst overall, IMO.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|