I don't think it is easier to make 35mm lens with the same FOV, the DZ11-22
and DZ50-200 are two great lenses that I miss. The 50-200 has less purple
fringe than all Zuikos, the Tamron SP 180/2.5 and SP 70-210/3.5-4 that I
have.
I once believe all my OM Zuikos were great in the film age even I had tested
them with Velvia and color negatives in the 1990's, during that time I
didn't know very well about CA and purple fringe. Now most of them failed
the purple fringe test with different degrees under the digital back.
Don't know about Minox but the Olympus XA do failed the purple fringe test.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Fildes"
> Oh yes, the Minotaur...Minoctar...whatever it was. Sharp as...
> But we're being a bit unfair perhaps there. Comparing it to the
> Panasonic 20mm is more reasonable, or even the centre of the old
> Zuiko 18mm f3.5 but it is an ultrawide - it's a hell of a lot easier
> to make a 35mm focal length lens with little or no aberration. That's
> one disadvantage of 4/3rds - to get even a moderately wide aspect you
> have to push the limits.
> Andrew Fildes
> afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> On 28/09/2009, at 3:53 PM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>
>> Again, I compare it to the 35mm f/2.8 lens on a Minox GT, which is
>> less than half the size of the
>> E-P1's 17mm lens, and has no distortion, and no visible chromatic
>> aberration (that I've ever seen in
>> my shots, in anyway). And it's from 1974!
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|