On 6/28/2015 11:58 AM, Bill Pearce wrote:
I'm growing amused with this conversation. .... So, if Oly is cropping a bit off the edge of the 12-40/2.8, that's
fine with me, I still plan on getting one for the EM5.2 I just got. They can cut it down to a 14 on the short end for
all I care
CH's complaint isn't with the lens, but with Viewer 3, which gratuitously throws away some of the width the lens
captures in both Raw conversion and the identical JPEGs. And not just that one lens; it's the same with the 12-50. And I
imagine there's also some AOV loss with the various 14-xx zooms and the short FL primes. I'd be pissed if I had dropped
$800 on the 12/2.0, and their software clipped its wings.
Adobe copies it exactly, so ACR/LR don't help. DxO completely solves it, for $, as do RawTherapee and PTLens, for fewer
$, but none of them easily replicate the look of Viewer 3
It may not matter to you, as that's not your focal length. Doesn't matter much to me, either. But it seems like a
legitimate complaint for anyone who likes 24 mm eq. It's somehow cavalier to sell one a lens, then throw away part of
what one paid for.
unless they can stretch it to 10, which seems unrealistic,
Software can't as yet add what the lens didn't capture, other than on police
procedurals on TV. :-)
but when I got my 43-86 Nikkor I said I'll never again shoot with a zoom,
At least the first couple of versions were not good lenses. I had the same reaction when my dad got one. OTOH, Oly's
first, the 35-70/3.6, which came out fairly soon thereafter, is quite a good lens.
and look where I'm at now.
Much has changed in lens design. :-)
Clearly Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|