Hi Ken, Chris, Dawid, Andrew, C.H., Jez, Jeff and all,
Yes, it's an old thread, but I've been very busy these days...
From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Indeed, Ken. Now what about the Panasonic offering -- with 20/1.7?
Well, I have just ordered that very same kit! My DSLR (EOS-300D) is already
dying and I'm giving up mirrors -- even with film, I'm currently "investing"
on rangefinders...
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>So in summary, it's a pretty, piece of junk. I am very disappointed at
>Olympus launching this camera in its current form.
The main problem is (are) the kit lens(es). I've decided for the GF1 instead
of the E-P1 mainly because of the built-in flash -- enough for my eBay sales
;^) OTOH, the Panny has no built-in IS (neither the 20/1.7 has it) but since
I never had such thing, I won't be missing it... perhaps...
>Ever since I saw those first images, I have been proclaiming that the 17mm
lens
>is a pathetic piece of glass, and your review makes me believe this
>even more.
Definitely -- that's the second reason to decide for the GF1, that 20/1.7
seems a very decent performer.
>I also don't think you can draw any conclusions as to the "bokeh"
characteristics of the lens in
>one, or five, test shots.
It's a far too complex matter, for sure. But somewhat secundary to me,
especially on such short focal lengths, as you pointed out.
>Again, I compare it to the 35mm f/2.8 lens on a Minox GT, which is less
than half the size of the
>E-P1's 17mm lens, and has no distortion, and no visible chromatic
aberration (that I've ever seen
>in my shots, in anyway). And it's from 1974!
Never had a Minox. AFAIK, that was a well-proven Tessar design -- a bit
pushed in that case, but still seems to perform great. Without the
constraint of a SLR-retrofocus design, a 63-degree lens at f/2.8 has been a
straightforward matter for many decades... 74 years, to be precise: remember
the Biogon 35/2.8 (aka Jupiter-12) from 1935? Still an EXCEEDINGLY sharp
lens, even by today standards!
>Also, I have to address your one comment:
>
>> But it is a very solid camera with a metal body that gives you the
>> sense that this camera really is something special and is built to
>> last.
>
>If plastic is "built to last" (which it may very well be), perhaps,
Haven't handled the E-P1, but it could be worse... (all plastic even
outside!)
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Comparing it to the Panasonic 20mm is more reasonable,
But then the Panny is a full stop and a half faster -- at just the expense
of 7-8 degrees of FOV :-(
>or even the centre of the old Zuiko 18mm f3.5 but it is an ultrawide
IMHO what makes a lens difficult to design (besides speed) is the field of
view, not the focal length itself -- it will depend on the format. That
said, the Zuiko 18 is indeed a really fine lens in its class, but much more
difficult to design due to the much wider coverage.
I won't be surprised if the Zuiko 18/3.5 outperformed the M.Zuiko 17/2.8 on
a MFT body, though...
>- it's a hell of a lot easier to make a 35mm focal length lens with little
or no aberration.
>That's one disadvantage of 4/3rds - to get even a moderately wide aspect
you
>have to push the limits.
I may be wrong, but I don't think so. If you insist on using lenses for a
larger format (say, 35mm film) then you'll need the most exotic and
superlative designs to go reasonably wide; but for a lens designed from the
scratch for the smaller format, it should be as easy -- if not easier!
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I don't think it is easier to make 35mm lens with the same FOV, the DZ11-22
>and DZ50-200 are two great lenses that I miss.
So I think. Videocameras' lenses are a bad example since the resolution
requirements are much lower, but 15 years ago it wasn't unusual to have the
equivalent of a 43-430mm... at constant f/1.8!!!
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>I'm not sure that I buy it. We've been through this before, just scaling
>down a 35mm design, with tight manufacturing tolerances, should
>already do a heck of a lot better than the M.Zuiko 17/2.8.
I think so. And even faster.
>In fact, from what I've seen, almost every 35mm lens with the same
>actual (or even smaller) focal length than the Oly 17mm trashes it
>on all fronts of image quality, except perhaps resolution
<snip>
>- Voigtlander 15mm and 12mm
These excellent lenses are maybe the closest equivalents... but the extra
coverage (and what a coverage!) makes them overkill for MicroFourThirds, and
slower (f/4.5 and f/5.6, respectively). I haven't tried the (yum, yum!)
12mm, but I own the 15mm and is indeed a superb performer -- with a flare
resistance unheard on SLR-ultra-wides!
>- Nikkor 14-24/2.8
>- Canon TS-E 17mm f/4
These have a completely different approach... not to say the bulk!
>- Leica Tri-Elmar 16-18-21
Ahem. Definitely not in the same price league...
>If I only had the equipment, imagine how cool a M.Zuiko lens one could
build by mounting the
>(tiny, tiny) 35/2.8 from the minox on a M.Zuiko mount ring.
But you'll have to put the lenses much farther because of the longer FL -- a
Tessar is not a telephoto design! See, for instance, the (Tessar derived)
Industar-50 lens in LTM mount versus the (much thinner!) SLR version.
>Would make a great small portrait lens :-)
Another killer portrait lens would be the (discontinued) Voigtlander Skopar
50/2.5 -- rather short but surprisingly heavy, with more-than-enough
sharpness and a beautiful, creamy texture...
>Anyway, I really am not convinced, the 17mm is a poor excuse of a lens,
based on
>the results I have seen. Even more embarrassing that the Panasonic 20/1.7
is *so*
>much better... And it's not even done with Leica.
Yeah, there's no excuse at all for that 17/2.8 :-(
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Again - the little CVoigt rangefinder lenses are fair comment but the
>others are massive by comparison (even the Tri-Elmar).
I agree.
>Micro 4/3rds body cap, Dremel, knife, screwdriver, hammer, Araldite, duct
tape....
>We used to do that sort of stuff all the time!
LOL!
From: Jez Cunningham <jez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Don't you think the angle of incidence on the digital sensor creates
>problems not found with film?Jez
I don't think so, as already proved by the M8 and M9... and even the (much
older and "unexpensive") Epson R-D1.
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Based on the results I obtained with the OM wides on 5D II, I don't think
>the angle of incidence really made a big trouble to the edge image quality,
However, in SLRs the angle of incidence would be much less of a problem,
since the larger register rarely makes it go over 30 degrees or so.
>The incidence angle of DZ doesn't seems much better than the old OM lenses,
>it can be seen from the small diameter of the rear lens element of the DZ
>lenses.
Again, they have to cover a smaller circle, so a bit less diameter is
actually needed.
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>I was hoping for a real Leica challenger, with f/1.4+ lenses, the works
(it's possible,
>there are no longer any constraints) but instead we get a poor-performing
17mm fisheye
>lens which must be made rectilinear in software, and this was not even to
compensate
>e.g. for spectacular resolution and apochromatic correction.
17mm Fisheye... LOL LOL... Very good ;^)
Please note that I'm not opposed to software correction of lenses'
aberration -- specifically geometric distortion and lateral colour, which
are the only ones that do NOT affect the sharp definition of the picture.
It's a new era with different media and we should get used to different way
of thinking. Such approach gives, in fact, one or two more degrees of
freedom to the design, which _could_ lead to better/sharper/faster
designs...
...but having to rely on them for an otherwise straightforward 63º/2.8 lens
is a really bad thing :-(
From: "Jeff Keller" <om-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>The Zuiko 17mm has a msrp of $299 putting it in the lowest/cheapest lens
>category Olympus has.
Sure, but it should be that way -- it does the work of a compact camera
lens... like the mju-2/Stylus Epic. This is no 14-35/2.0...
>For better or worse, zoom lenses are where most sales are. It is sweet that
>Olympus found a way to come out with a low cost prime.
But still more expensive than the kit zoom!
>The collapsing 14-42 is the most interesting
>to me and will probably ultimately pull money out of my wallet.
Mechanically, yes. But again, it seems to be a below-average performer
too...
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|