Since the 35-80 is my favorite lens on the A7, I'd welcome some
illustrations of your point. Is outperforming about more then better
corners (I understand why smaller sensors have a benefit, not why they
would 'outperform')? And at which F stops?
I think most of the mentioned 'variables' correlate highly with the
telecentric build of a lens. The modding of the A7x series to obtain a
thinner stack was typically invented for the symmetric build rangefinder
lenses, who are not very telecentric.
And why would the zoom make a good example, since a zoom like that is even
more telecentric then a prime lens in that range (if I understand the
concept correct)? It is not F2 either.
2016-12-16 16:16 GMT+01:00 Ken Norton
>
>
> The OMZ 35-80/2.8 is a good example. This lens is simply incredible on
> film, on the E-1 and L1. But on the 6D, it doesn't grab you by the
> throat and shake you around like you'd expect.
>
> The 50/1.4, 28/2 and 100/2 smoke it on film and the 4/3 bodies, but
> are also-rans on the 6D. Unless stopped down, the 50/1.4 is almost
> worthless on the 6D.
>
> The oddity of the bunch is the 35/2.8 (silvernose). This lens is
> outstanding on film, even MORE outstanding on the 6D, but hohums me on
> the 4/3 bodies. The 24/2.8 is OK on film, outstanding on the L1 and 6D
> but not so hot on the E-1 and E-3.
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|