Hi,
Conventional optical theory dictates, of course, that it's easier to
design
a good f/2.8 lens than a f/2.0 lens of the same focal length, because
of the
geometric increase of aberrations as aperture size increases.
Luckily, in many cases, the greatly increased cost of the faster
lenses means that
they can, due to more elaborate design/production/quality control,
match or exceed
their slower siblings, which are seen as "budget" lenses.
Some manufacturers (e.g. Leica, Zeiss, Cosina Voigtlander) do not
follow this approach
(where their slower lenses usually don't cost much less than the
faster ones, but are
optically superior. For example, the Zeiss ZM 35mm f/2.8 is hands down
the best 35mm
focal length lens ever made, but doesn't cost significantly less than
the 35mm f/2.0.
Similarly, the Cosina Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 costs more than
some of their faster
(f/2.0, f/1.5) 50mm lenses, but is hands down the best 50mm lens ever
created (there
is no Leica lens that, from a purely technical / aberration
perspective, matches it-
this is admitted even by Erwin Puts, who is the biggest Leica fanboy -
with the technical
know-how- back it up - known to man).
With SLRs, some lens manufacturers (Canon, Zeiss) produce flagship
lenses, where the faster
lenses greatly exceed the performance of the slower lenses. They
usually achieve this
through gigantic physical size (Canon and Zeiss' 35mm f/14 lenses, for
example) and high cost.
My experience with Olympus has been different to all this in an
interesting way: Their faster
glass generally seems to be not really better or worse than the slower
glass. Simply faster.
(the differences, though there, are really academic, you can't "see"
it in the photos as with
many other lens ranges). The fact that the fast wide glass has
remained incredibly compact, yet
maintained the same level of performance, at a stop faster speed, is
quite an achievement, and
something not really matched by any other manufacturer. Even fast
Leica wide lenses are
gigantic compared to their slower siblings, and they are usually even
bigger than the OM
lenses. When you sit back and think what they have achieved here, it's
truly phenomenal.
SwissPace, I am truly surprised that you prefer the 24/2.8 to the 21/2
from an optical
perspective. I can understand that one would favour an even little bit
more compact lens,
or that one prefers the 24mm to the 21mm FOV. But for sharpness? Some
sample variation /
damage must be at play here, surely?
For some time, I used a very battered 24/2, and would probably have
remained happy with the
focal length, but was looking for a lens in slightly better condition.
Instead of a mint 24/2,
I happened upon a bargain for a mint 21/2, so went for that instead.
Optically, there is very little between the two, except that my 24/2
had a yellow colour cast,
and Olympus definitely improved the multicoating, the 21/2 is much
less prone to ghosting.
Both have pretty bad coma in the corners shot wide open with point
light sources, but then
again, so does even a Leica Summicron M 90mm f/2.0, so for a 21mm lens
to have this is alright.
Resolution is great across the frame, except a very rapid drop at the
last 3mm or so in the
corners. I see this because I print my negatives full-frame including
the rebate, but anybody
who frames or mounts slides won't see this.
I would take the 21/2 over the 24/2.8 any day, though - especially for
shallow DOF, close-up
shots like this: The floating system, and f/2.0, open up possibilities
for unique imagery.
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/209/b/c/Butterfly_Trust_by_philosomatographer.jpg
For landscape/scenery stopped down? Probably no difference, I bet
nobody could tell a shot
from any of the four wides (21/2, 21/3.5, 24/2, 24/2.8) apart, and the
slower lenses have
a tad less distortion (if I recall correctly).
We're lucky to be able to play with these toys for modest amounts of
money, since the
Olympus OM market is now a niche within a niche at best.
Dawid
On 21 Oct 2010, at 11:51 AM, SwissPace wrote:
> I haven't tried the 24/2 but I do have the 21/2, but I actually prefer
> the 24/2.8 which seems must sharper than the faster lens, so I think
> there must be quite a bit of variation even with the OM lenses, for
> example I agree with AG about how fantastic the 35-80 is but I despise
> my 200/4 silver nose.
>
>> of using one of the fast wide-angle Zuikos?
>>
>> A 24/2 offers a significantly different experience to the 24/2.8, and
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
