Good morning, Ulf;
Thanks for your comments, with which I agree. This photo was both a
nice surprise, and a big disappointment when I saw the curved horizon.
Strangely, I have other similar images which do not show barrel
distortion. Perhaps I'll post one of them as well.
I've thought about how I would print this. Obviously, not as is. How
about a baseboard with 'pincushion distortion'? Actually, once my
photoshop skills improve ....
George
Ulf Westerberg wrote:
>
> Hi George and others
>
> while slowly recovering from a terrible winter flu I can't help but comment
> on the barrel distortion ( http://www.whitneygallery.com/olympus/kbs.html )
> of this lens.
>
> I don't know if I'm oversensitive or not, but this totally ruins an otherwise
> excellent image, IMO it renders it almost unusable. All this talk of 4.2 or
> 3.6 or whatever is relatively meaningless IMO. A lot of other factors also
> count, distortion being one of them, vignetting another major one.
> I thought my 35-70/3.5-4.5 was bad at this but it actually seems better than
> the 35-80/2.8.
>
> And, oh yes, I've seen at least one zoom with fantastic flare control and
> characterictics, the (sorry, not a Zuiko) Pentax 28-70/4 AF. I reckon it's
> better in this department than my 35/2.0, which in itself is pretty good.
> Can't compete with sharpness, though.
>
> back to sleep,
> cheers
> Ulf Westerberg
> Nature- and Travel Photography at www.start.at/westerberg
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|