I don't know what I should feel about the digital lens correction. The
amount of correction applied to the 20-70/4 is staggering. The
70-200/4 is moderate. The 200-600 is minimal. The 70-200/2.8 GM is
minimal. From that perspective the 20-70/4 should be a very hated
lens. But here is the deal. The correction algorithms are so good now
(I'm using Lightroom) that it's pretty much a moot point. While I
would prefer that the lens be "perfect" I am NOW much more accepting
of the fact that the lens is just a part of the "imaging system."
If I think about the raw lens quality, there is no way that I should
keep the 70-200/4 and instead use the 2.8 GM. I'll need to make that
choice at some point soon. But the GM also needs to go into SONY for a
repair before I can put it back in use.
I did some skyline photography last night and used all three lenses,
but mostly the 70-200/4. I did notice a point where I did absolutely
run into the limits of the lens. Not just in distortion correction,
but sharpness. The 70-200/4 is a great lens, but the 2.8 is a
more-better great lens. It was pixel sharp-ish but didn't quite want
to focus exactly as well as the other lenses. There is a nuance there
that I can't quite put my finger on.
Whatever. I'm happy to have this lens for this trip.
OZ Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|