Olympus 21/2 is also not that good if you need a lens with sharpness cover
corner to corner. The OM 21/24/28 F2 all suffer from corner softness even
stopped down. For me, some softness at the far corner is ok, as long as the
edges is sharp and they all fulfill my requirement.
To me the meaning to go FF is because I have lots of OM lenses, there is no
fun to use them at 2x or even 1.6x. Shallow DOF is also what I'm looking
for, I like large aperture wides.
I'm not sure if you are picky or there are some reasons behind. For the
Olympus 14-54 I once owned, on the field it gave soft image at around
25-35mm most of the time but in a serious test with MF it was not bad.
Fianlly, I believe it was focusing problem (on my E-1), unfortunately I have
sold both and can't confirm it anymore.
AF can have problem and it is well known. My friend's D90 also has focusing
problem, in N*kon service center there were some D90 owners there for fixing
the AF issues, the custom service gal told one of them 'The problem cannot
be solved you may have to wait for the next model'.
Until now I have not found any OM lenses I don't like about its resolution
on the 5D II, including the 16/3.5, 21-28/2, 40/2, 50/2, 85/2, 90/2, 100/2,
28-48/4, 35-105/3.5-4.5 and 35 shift. The others waiting for field test. I
don't believe the L lenses are not equal or better. May be I'm too easy on
the lens quality.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "ws"
> Interesting site. I noticed the 24-70/2.8 does considerably better than
> the comparable ranges on the 16-35 mkII. My impression is that Can*n
> does better in longer focal lengths, but I have not seen anything really
> impressive in the wider ranges. Although I have never used the 24-70/2.8.
> Even the 28-135 seems to do better at 28mm.
>
> I just want a good 21mm lens. I let my oly 21/2 go, it was very nice.
> What is the point of a FF sensor with out a decent wide?
> The Can*n 24-105/4 just doesn't impress me, other than it is
> a convenient range, and yes, most of my shots are with that lens.
> But even the cheaper 28-135 seems better in a lot of ways, just too slow
> on the top end. the
>
> The loss in the 16-35 mkII at 35mm seems like net zero gain to me
> over the version 1. I would rather have a good 16-18mm prime and a
> good 35mm prime, but Cany*n doesn't seem to think it is worth
> pursuing a non-zoom wide. If the mkII were as good as the 24-70
> at 35mm, then it would be an impressive lens. Having wasted money
> on the 16-35 version 1, I'm reluctant to waste any more.
>
> Am I being too picky? When the non-L 28-135 does about a well as any
> of the L lenses, makes me wonder if Can*n is spending too much on
> the camera and not enough the lenses.
>
> Wayne
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|