Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMGS: SL Summilux

Subject: Re: [OM] IMGS: SL Summilux
From: Mike Gordon via olympus <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 14:27:32 -0500
Cc: usher99@xxxxxxx
<<<It doesn't prove that the lens optics are free of distortion.

Yes, Jim is spot on.  To evaluate the optics alone one must use a converter 
that does not read the corrective metadata embedded in the file.  
LR using acr will read the data. There is a price to be paid in resolution in 
the areas stretched out to correct the distortion, small as that may be, but a 
price nonetheless. Leica
undoubtedly chose some other rendering quality over perfectly correcting the 
barrel distortion. Whether they would spill the beans on that, I don't know.  
Dr. Nasse at Zeiss often will. 
On some of their previous WA lenses they left some field curvature  to aid 
other rendering qualities such as resolution and microcontrast and still not 
have the lens too huge in size or price.
They would rather have a lens somewhat better as an image maker than one that 
tests well in reviews. To state the obvious there are always compromises, but 
it is a bit surprising about the barrel distortion in a lens this big 
in size and price.  I trust they had a very good reason for that.  I do like 
Tina's use of it. 

Mike

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz