The area of lens design that have greatly improved (as previously stated)
are zooms, ultra wide and tele. The olympus line is very weak in the area of
zooms (the 35-80 being the exception). Canon for example has the consumer
28-105, 35-135is and pro 28-70f2.8, 70-200f4/f2.8 and 17-35f2.8. The
70-200f4/f2.8 zooms are both superior to anything (prime or zoom) olympus has
between 105mm and 200mm. Olympus was blessed with a very good ultra wide
(18mm lens), 24 shift lens and such but has always been weak in the area of
tele lenses.
Also, olympus suffers in the area the ultra fast lens (small != fast). While
they do have the 21f2 (which vignets heavily at f2) and a reputed very
nice/cheap 50f1.2 (I only say reputed because I have never used it -- I've
heard one bad comment and a dozen good comments on this lens) they lack
24f1.4, 35f1.4, 85f1.2, ...
>From a practical stand point olympus lens produce good images - however - as
shown on photodo and other places many of the designs lack the absolute
resolution of other lenses. Resolution isn't everything and often isn't the
most important thing but one should only claim what is fact and not wishful
thinking.
Olympus has some very good lenses - though they sometime compromised optics for
physical size. However, other manufactors also have very good lenses. Better is
in the eyes of the beholder. I've been happy with my small olympus kit and
there are a few lenses I would pick up if the price/performance ratio hadn't
been driven so high by fanatics -- but for a given dollar I'm not so sure
olympus offers either the best bargin or the best product.
I think if olympus had kept developing the line and tweaking the lenses the
story would be different...
Alan
< 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 >
|