A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Those wonderful Olympus lenses...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 19th 05, 12:35 PM
Knild
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Those wonderful Olympus lenses...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=12317645


Sheesh! - a 500 GBP lens on a 1000 GBP camera - and STILL the Oly maniacs
won't admit that there's a problem!


  #2  
Old February 19th 05, 01:06 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.

The guy didn't return.

No mention of possible filter problems.

He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
methodically investigated post..)

Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.

Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.

It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!

So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.

Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
indeed.

  #3  
Old February 19th 05, 01:24 PM
Knild
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
oups.com...
One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.

The guy didn't return.

No mention of possible filter problems.

He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
methodically investigated post..)

Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.

Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.

It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!

So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.

Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
indeed.



You miss the point - there has been an awful lot of hoo-hah in the Oly forum
about the expected new lenses from Olympus (expressed in the usual
nauseating manner of the Askey forums - 'Sweeeeet', Awesome' etc etc) and a
good deal of bashing anyone who demurs from the forum stance that
Olympus-photographic-equipment-is-manufactured-in-heaven-by-Angels-and-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-just-a-demon-incarnate.

One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
seem to work very well!

But, apparently not - and (as they doubtless chuckle in the Olympus
boardroom) 'A foolish Olympus owner and his money are very easily parted"


  #4  
Old February 19th 05, 03:14 PM
Basic Wedge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No doubt about it, those shots do show signs of vignette. I wonder if the
guy had any sort of filter mounted on his lens. Possibly he did, and
possibly that was the cause.

Technically good shots otherwise - absolutely no signs of "banding", so, at
least, we can be certain they weren't taken with a 20D

Rob


  #6  
Old February 19th 05, 06:25 PM
Steven M. Scharf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Knild" wrote in message
...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=12317645


Sheesh! - a 500 GBP lens on a 1000 GBP camera - and STILL the Oly maniacs
won't admit that there's a problem!


When I read that thread in the forum, it looked like that they _do_ admit
the problem. Look you're always going to have a couple of people that will
never admit any flaw with anything they've purchased, as if it makes them
lose face to ever do so. But most people are not so sensitive, and are more
interested in solving the problem then denying it exists.


  #7  
Old February 20th 05, 02:05 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

My point was - is there much of that *here*?

I see far more Nikon, Canon, and Leica `maniacs` here, and if you think
it is solely Olympus owners, perhaps you need to investigate human
nature...

FWIW, I *do* own an Olympus camera - the C8080 (amongst other Pentax,
Minolta and Bronica film equipment, and Canon and Sony digitals). The
Oly is a very good fit to my needs as a general purpose camera. It has
some stupid menu arrangements, and the software designers need to go
back to school. But that doesn't stop it from having a lens and sensor
that, at low ISO's (which is what I shoot), beats your average DSLR for
resolution, right through it's 28-140 lens range. In one very portable
little package. Not perfect, but not bad either. Do Olympus make some
excellent, some good, some bad lenses? - Yes, of course they do, just
like any other manufacturer. Are there Olympus fanatics? - Yes, of
course, just like Leica fanatics, Nikon..etc.., but I don't see them
causing a great problem here, nor do I see that forum example as
evidence.

Am I an Olympus fanatic? Am I foolish for buying the 8080? - you just
made a sweeping generalisation that says I am, based on...? Yet I
criticise Olympus for their design errors as I would any brand, and I
think I made a good choice in the 8080, for the requirement I have.

And I think it would be just a little silly to condemn all products
from any manufacturer on one or two, or even three.., lenses or
cameras. Name your brand, and I'm sure I (or others more knowledgable)
could happily name the crap lenses/cameras *they* have created..

  #8  
Old February 20th 05, 02:42 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Knild wrote:

One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
seem to work very well!



You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will tell
you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
line-up.This 'problem' is mainly at 54mm wide open as well.


The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
setting to compensate, which this newbie user didn't have turned on. Can't
blame the camera when the users won't read the manual! :-) Also unless the
contrast is SUPER cranked it's hard to even see.

You did leave out his coment:

"I migrated south (in pixels that is) from the 20d and find the E-1
enviroment just right! Wonderful camera and a pleasure to use."

Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not going
to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never going
to use though..

--

Stacey
  #9  
Old February 20th 05, 03:19 AM
Knild
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Stacey" wrote in message
...

You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will
tell
you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
line-up


Fair enough - but it's a 500 GBP 'dog', that's a lot of money to pay for a
substandard lens.


The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
setting to compensate


So, are you saying that Olympus were aware from the outset that the Four
Thirds system had inherent problems, and built a compensation device into
their camera?- what about the 300? - does that have the fault rectification
built in as well?


Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not
going
to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never
going
to use though



I'm posting purely as someone who is looking to buy a DSLR in the very near
future - and who wants to get the best value for money (which means far more
than just initial price) possible.



  #10  
Old February 20th 05, 09:04 AM
Stacey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Knild wrote:


"Stacey" wrote in message
...

You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will
tell
you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
line-up


Fair enough - but it's a 500 GBP 'dog', that's a lot of money to pay for a
substandard lens.


That's why I didn't buy it. But I think "substandard" is pretty harsh for a
lens that has very minor vignetting at the long end wide open. Almost any
zoom with this wide a range is going to have issues somewhere in it's range
and how much does the canon/nikon f2.8 equiv lens cost? I bet it's not
$500.

I'm waiting for the 14-35 F2 to come in and even if it's $1500, I'll
probably get one.




The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
setting to compensate


So, are you saying that Olympus were aware from the outset that the Four
Thirds system had inherent problems,


The "system" doesn't have this problem, just looks like this one lens does
at the long end of it's range. And IMHO if you look at "normal" images, you
don't even see it. This guy cranked the contrast to maximum settings to see
this, many said they have never noticed it. But yes it is there and
probably why they put this setting in the camera menu.

BTW here's how the canon 28-105 and 28-135 lenses rate to one user. The
latter is a $400 lens/paperweight and both are a stop slower than the ZD
lens is.

=========
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm




I encourage you to look at the images below for yourself, but here is how I
interpret these images.


Both lenses are pretty blurry at wide apertures at all focal lengths. For my
purposes, neither of these lenses are usable at wide apertures. In fact, I
was unable to find any combination of aperture and focal length where the
edges were as sharp as the center.

The Canon 28-135 seems to perform slightly better at 28mm, particularly at
wide apertures, but still isn't very good. Given that I wouldn't want to
use either lens at wide apertures, I consider this superiority to be of
academic interest only.

The Canon 28-105 is clearly better at 105mm. The edges in particular are
much sharper using the Canon 28-105 lens than the Canon 28-135 lens. Even
at F11, the edges of the Canon 28-135mm lens are considerably softer than
the center.

At 50mm, things seem pretty even. Both are soft at the edges wide open,
although the center of the 28-135mm lens is slightly sharper at wide
apertures.

The canon 28-105 shows less contrast, and the images are slightly
"warmer" (more of a red tint).

Although this is not apparent from these test shots, I felt that the Canon
28-135 was not uniform in its softness. At wide angle, the right edge of
the image appears softer than the left. At longer focal lengths, the top of
the image is softer than the the bottom. In contrast, the softness of the
edges of the Canon 28-105 was roughly uniform. For these crops I picked
areas from the softer edges of the Canon 28-135, so these may represent a
"worst-case" scenario.
=================


Now that sounds/looks like some crappy optics to me! Did you see the test
images? I think I could live with a touch of vignetting rather than a lens
that's unusable wide open?

Heres some test sniplets from the zuiko 11-22 ZD.

http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/E300/11-22.html

From wide open to f11, it works fine.


If you want equal optical performance to the expencive zuiko's, you're going
to have to buy the expencive Canon L glass. If you think the cheap or old
skool optics are going to work good on a 20D or even a 10D, you're
dreaming.





Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not
going
to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never
going
to use though



I'm posting purely as someone who is looking to buy a DSLR in the very
near future - and who wants to get the best value for money (which means
far more than just initial price) possible.



You sure seem to be posting mainly olympus bashing posts. I'm not sure what
you're point is? These work fine for some people, if you don't like their
"features" buy something else. When I was looking, I wasn't posting canon
or nikon bashing posts. This sort of posting smells like a troll to me.

But anyway you sure sound like a perfect canidate for a canon. Have fun
cleaning your sensor and using 20 year old optical designs!! :-)



--

Stacey
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS Olympus E-20 & conversion lenses Digital Community Digital Photography 0 November 13th 04 02:56 AM
Which Maxxum lenses would you recommend? Lee Howard 35mm Photo Equipment 10 November 9th 04 04:47 AM
Optical Quality: AF vs MF David Dyer-Bennet 35mm Photo Equipment 15 September 2nd 04 09:39 PM
Pentax *ist compatible with P3n lenses? Patrick M. Ryan Digital Photography 2 August 31st 04 04:27 AM
New Leica digital back info.... Barney 35mm Photo Equipment 19 June 30th 04 12:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.