Yes exactly, thanks for posting this. Now in what universe should
a retrofocus (which the M.Zuiko 17mm does not need to be),
f/2.0 24mm super-wide-angle (at the time certainly was, now it's
just "wide angle" I guess) design be so much superior to a 2009,
wonder-computer-controlled, non-mirror-box-constrained design which
is a full stop slower, and in one of the easiest-to-design focal
lengths.
I don't buy the "it's harder to design for Four Thirds" argument.
I know it's not the same focal length, but A Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 (>1,1mil
S/N)
is claimed to be diffraction-limited (from a Modern Photography Test)
by f/5.6 already,
and this is an ancient design. Thus, one cannot produce a better-
resolving 50mm for
Micro four thirds. Minox and Leica 35mm lenses are typically better,
and smaller, than
most Zuiko lenses. So there is no excuse for Olympus, never mind
innovating, but
not actually even keeping up with what has been possible in 35mm.
I was hoping for a real Leica challenger, with f/1.4+ lenses, the
works (it's possible,
there are no longer any constraints) but instead we get a poor-
performing 17mm fisheye
lens which must be made rectilinear in software, and this was not even
to compensate
e.g. for spectacular resolution and apochromatic correction.
I have a feeling that a Zuiko 16mm fisheye (another ~1973 design)
mounted on
the E-P1 and de-fished will perform at the same, if not better level,
as the M.Zuiko
- anybody care to test?
Anyway, it's a pretty little thing, but not for me.
On 28 Sep 2009, at 12:29 PM, C.H.Ling wrote:
> Sample of 24/2 at F4, 5D II, no sharpen applied:
>
> http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/IMG_1761-24F2atF4.JPG (3.6MB)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
