On 8/30/2016 9:04 PM, Jim Nichols wrote:
. . . Yes, the editing software I use gives me RAW that is raw, and, when necessary, I use PTLens to overcome the
optical shortcomings. But, I think, for an old codger like me, an old, well-designed lens just better suits me. I
don't want to be fed pablum just because "they" think it is good for me.
It's an interesting issue. Lens design, like all of photography, if not all of life, is a balancing act. Even with
unlimited funds for design and manufacture and folks who will pay whatever it takes for a lens, it's not actually
possible to design a perfect lens. Add in market realities, and designers play games of compromise. Freeing the
requirement for close to perfect linear distortion a bit allows better optimization of other qualities, and/or less
size, weight, cost.
Someone who says, "That Dingbat 37.5/1.9 sure is a great lens, at a great price, except for the distortion that's being
corrected in software. I'd buy one for sure, otherwise." is imagining something that can't/won't exist, at least for
some time.
There's been a heckuva lot of change in lens design over the last 4+ decades. Here's some I happen to have lying around,
partly for a project <http://zone-10.com/tope2/main.php?g2_itemId=20705>.
All the same diagonal AoV.
Tamron 28/2.8 Adapt-A-Matic (pre Adaptall, ca. 1970) - 387 g. ("The Hulk")
Hanimex 28/2.8 - 283 g.
Image 28/2.8 - 225 g.
Zuiko 28.2.0 - 250 g.
Panasonic µ4/3 14/2.5 - 50 g.
The Tammy, one of the last pre-computer aided designs, is huge, heavy, with a bulbous FE, has bad, i.e. wonderful for my
purposes, aberrations at wide apertures. Came in some batch buy years ago.
The Hanimex, inherited from my dad, isn't great wide open, but not as
interesting as the Tammy.
The Auto-Image, off brand as you can get, in nonetheless a modern lens, and too good, but not good enough to be of
interest. Came on a camera body I wanted.
I don't have an OMZ 28/2.8. It would be 25% shorter than this f2.0, and weigh
170 g.
The Panny is just for fun, and to explain one why of moving to µ4/3. ;-)
I bought the last two lenses, on purpose.
The trade-offs that different makers make, for different lines are interesting. I have a friend who wants a very highly
linear 12 mm lens for a particular use. His problem is that the lenses, like the Oly 12/2.0 he's been using, that
correct significant distortion in software have soft corners as a result. Then those with little distortion right out of
the lens, have other optical flaws that defeat his intent.
It does appear that the new PLeica 12/1.4 may have little distortion in the lens itself, and fit his optical needs
admirably. - but it's enormous, heavy and expensive -more of those trade-offs. :-)
At the moment, he's trying out my 9-18 zoom. We know it has much distortion @ 9 mm, but it seems there may be much less
in the lens itself @ 12 mm.
Aberrant Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|