On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Piers Hemy <piers@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Herewith some examples, all using a 35/2.8 T/S lens, apertures used not
> recorded, but certainly full-aperture in the first two cases:
>
> 1) Without the focal reducer, thus 35mm f/l on an APS-C sensor:
> a) with the lens fully shifted to the right - see the vignetting in the
> corners at left of the image:
> http://www.hemy.me.uk/XPRO2475.jpg
> b) the previous image stitched with its twin to the right, composite
> cropped
> to remove vignetting
> http://www.hemy.me.uk/XPRO2475-Pano.jpg
>
> 2) With the focal reducer and the same 35/2.8 T/S, thus effectively 25/2
> T/S
> a) with the lens unshifted, untilted. Look carefully at the specular
> highlights in the bottom LH corner for the CA:
> http://www.hemy.me.uk/XPRO2912.jpg
> b) with the lens shifted downwards - even more CA in the lower LH corner,
> but look also at the tree branches against the sky in the top LH corner
> (and
> some adjustments to vibrance and clarity here):
> http://www.hemy.me.uk/XPRO2914.jpg
> c) with the lens shifted downwards - no specular highlights, no back lit
> trees in the corners, no CA seen on the line of the horizon (but it isn't
> in
> the corners).
> http://www.hemy.me.uk/XPRO2921.jpg
I wasn't expecting this amount of detail. That's pretty impressive.
> I hope to have chosen some images which give an idea of detail resolution
> with and without the focal reducer, as well as the CA with it. But note
> that
> I didn't choose the subjects with that in mind! Apart from the edits
> mentioned, these are all straight exports from the raw files in LR.
>
> Thanks for asking the question, Joel, I think you have drawn me to evaluate
> my purchase more carefully than I had chosen to do before. I am glad that I
> did, I am happy with the results.
>
The last 35-70 Zuiko might make a good walkabout lens for it. I have one
of those. Hmmm.
>
> Piers
>
> PS Happy with the results is one thing, but as delivered the adapter was
> devoid of the usual screw in the bayonet to prevent turning it the wrong
> way
> on the camera. It was such a tight fit that I (wrongly) assumed I had been
> turning it bassackwards, and proceeded to do precisely that, turned the
> adapter anticlockwise on the camera with the result that the s/s spring in
> the camera bayonet acted as a pawl, preventing removal of the adapter
> without excessive force, and a badly mangled s/s spring (never mind the
> scored adapter bayonet). The good news is that Fuji UK were happy to supply
> a replacement s/s spring. Free of charge too. Even better news is that a
> small application of Sugru to the relevant part of the bayonet prevents me
> repeating the offence. I now "don't need no stinkin' screw in the bayonet".
>
I had a similar problem with an EOS adapter from Big_is. It was missing a
little screw that served as a stop, so I managed to roll a Zuiko too far on
my son's 60D. Somehow I sorted out how to back it out and discovered the
problem. Fixed it by gluing on oversized paperclip wire into the hole and
snipping it off to length. Happy but stressful.
Thanks for putting this all together, Piers.
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
