Summed up Moose states:
>Considering the 3D effect of FL on lens volume, and the tripod mount,
only a
.28% weight increase is pretty impressive.
>Of course, the Zuiko weight includes the built-in hood and the Sigma
doesn't
>include the hood, although it's quite light.
>Increase in length and diameter pretty much even out at the 20%
increase in FL.
What a wonderful summary of performance and size differences. I saved
this one.
Thanks, Moose.
Ed has a point that the central obstruction (secondary mirror) reduces
MTF at low spatial frequencies.
As the reduction is uniform it should respond well to PP. Whether
increasing global contrast or adding LCE reverses this
effect precisely or just partially corrects it, I don't know, but the
images seem to respond nicely. Not much can be done for loss of
resolution at higher spatial frequency. I wonder how the IQ compares
after processing, but that is really a very difficult question.
The images with CAT lenses always seem to lack SNAP,
but CH's and others posted here contradict that. I wonder if his would
make some nice large prints?
I do have a nice Celestron 750 f6 and had sniped at a couple Zen finish
Sigi 600/8 ones and I think a camo one a few years ago.
I have since read that the latest flavor of this lens with the "Zen"
finish can start to break down and become tacky and messy. Moose's
plain black one seemed fine.
CH has a good point about packing density. If somehing goes in my
travel kit now, something else has to stay home. :-(
I am going to keep an eye on these lenses.
One CAT household , but may change that, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|