That's quite a collection, Moose. And they look to be in good shape.
My oldies include Leica screw mounts and Exacta mount, but, over the
years, their condition has deteriorated.
I realize that design philosophy has changed greatly over the last 40
yrs, mostly in pursuit of sharpness and speed. And, along with this,
prices have risen proportionally. I just can't justify a current top of
the line Leica, or even Sony, for my meager pursuits. So, I cling to an
earlier set of standards. I may be tempted, though, to go for a new
Fuji body when the X-T2 comes out next month.
But I think my lens collection will remain the same. Even my
bad-mouthed Fujinon 35/2 has its uses.
Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
On 8/31/2016 12:29 AM, Moose wrote:
On 8/30/2016 9:04 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
. . . Yes, the editing software I use gives me RAW that is raw, and,
when necessary, I use PTLens to overcome the optical shortcomings.
But, I think, for an old codger like me, an old, well-designed lens
just better suits me. I don't want to be fed pablum just because
"they" think it is good for me.
It's an interesting issue. Lens design, like all of photography, if
not all of life, is a balancing act. Even with unlimited funds for
design and manufacture and folks who will pay whatever it takes for a
lens, it's not actually possible to design a perfect lens. Add in
market realities, and designers play games of compromise. Freeing the
requirement for close to perfect linear distortion a bit allows better
optimization of other qualities, and/or less size, weight, cost.
Someone who says, "That Dingbat 37.5/1.9 sure is a great lens, at a
great price, except for the distortion that's being corrected in
software. I'd buy one for sure, otherwise." is imagining something
that can't/won't exist, at least for some time.
There's been a heckuva lot of change in lens design over the last 4+
decades. Here's some I happen to have lying around, partly for a
project <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=20705>.
All the same diagonal AoV.
Tamron 28/2.8 Adapt-A-Matic (pre Adaptall, ca. 1970) - 387 g. ("The
Hulk")
Hanimex 28/2.8 - 283 g.
Image 28/2.8 - 225 g.
Zuiko 28.2.0 - 250 g.
Panasonic µ4/3 14/2.5 - 50 g.
The Tammy, one of the last pre-computer aided designs, is huge, heavy,
with a bulbous FE, has bad, i.e. wonderful for my purposes,
aberrations at wide apertures. Came in some batch buy years ago.
The Hanimex, inherited from my dad, isn't great wide open, but not as
interesting as the Tammy.
The Auto-Image, off brand as you can get, in nonetheless a modern
lens, and too good, but not good enough to be of interest. Came on a
camera body I wanted.
I don't have an OMZ 28/2.8. It would be 25% shorter than this f2.0,
and weigh 170 g.
The Panny is just for fun, and to explain one why of moving to µ4/3. ;-)
I bought the last two lenses, on purpose.
The trade-offs that different makers make, for different lines are
interesting. I have a friend who wants a very highly linear 12 mm lens
for a particular use. His problem is that the lenses, like the Oly
12/2.0 he's been using, that correct significant distortion in
software have soft corners as a result. Then those with little
distortion right out of the lens, have other optical flaws that defeat
his intent.
It does appear that the new PLeica 12/1.4 may have little distortion
in the lens itself, and fit his optical needs admirably. - but it's
enormous, heavy and expensive -more of those trade-offs. :-)
At the moment, he's trying out my 9-18 zoom. We know it has much
distortion @ 9 mm, but it seems there may be much less in the lens
itself @ 12 mm.
Aberrant Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|