Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'd like to assure people glass choices in a lens is not off of a sudden for some unknown reason no longer a key issue in the lens design parameters and final cost of the lens which is also a parameter.. They often make the difference between a premium lens and a cheap lens. Not that there are not other key issues. Mark William Rabiner > From: "Henning J. Wulff" <henningw at archiphoto.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 14:19:58 -0700 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Software correection of abberations on MFT systems > > With most lenses, raw material costs will truly be minor unless very > special > glasses are used as in the f/1 Noctilux. Most glass is relatively cheap > when > you consider the amounts used. Other raw materials are a few dollars. Costs > are due to design, manufacturing and especially testing and QC. Comparing a > 24-70/2.8 for full frame and the 12-35/2.8 for m43, I doubt that raw > material > costs differ by more than 10 or 20 dollars. That difference gets magnified > by > an order of magnitude at list price, but is still a minor part. > > Henning > > > On 2012-09-26, at 10:36 AM, A. Lal wrote: > >> It is good to know that distortions is corrected across makes, but not CA. >> This was news to me, as you might have gathered from my post. We shall >> have >> to wait and see about 3rd party lenses. >> >> As for cost, a smaller format lens, ought to be cheaper, all else being >> equal, simply because raw materials costs are lower to start with. A >> price >> of 50% of an equivalent full frame 35mm sounds in line with >> expectations. Of >> course, the selling price may not be directly related to cost of >> manufacture. >> >> BTW, I made no comment about DOF. >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henning Wulff" <henningw at >> archiphoto.com> >> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:23 PM >> Subject: Re: [Leica] Software correection of abberations on MFT systems >> >> >>> On Olympus bodies the 12-35 appears to correct for distortion, but not >>> CA. >>> Distortion levels are very low and much lower than other manufacturer's >>> 24-70/2.8 lenses, for example in the output image. That is in line with >>> what >>> Olympus does for its own lenses. Panasonic bodies correct for distortion >>> and >>> CA; Olympus bodies do not. The 7-14 Panasonic is also corrected for its >>> distortion on the OM-D which would otherwise be very noticeable. Olympus >>> lens are corrected for distortion on Panasonic bodies, just as on Olympus >>> bodies. >>> >>> As for third party lenses, it would depend. Are these lenses AF lenses >>> designed for the m43 cameras, or are they non-electronic lenses designed >>> for >>> other systems? If the former, possibly corrections are applied in line >>> with >>> the maker's lenses; if the latter, no. Since the latter are designed >>> without >>> software corrections in mind in the first place, that should be no >>> problem. >>> >>> The issue with Panasonic lenses not being corrected for CA on Olympus >>> bodies >>> is known. However, in general the lens behaves very well and has very >>> high >>> image quality. Photozone once again states that 'they are not against >>> MFT', >>> but seem to be harsher on m43 lenses with respect to such things as >>> distortion than lenses for larger formats. They note the 'considerable >>> distortion' of the 12-35 at 1.5% but gloss over the distortion of the >>> Nikon >>> and Canon lenses at nearly twice those levels. For the new Canon at 2.8% >>> they state: 'The vignetting and distortion characteristic is above >>> average >>> for a lens in this class'. Also, they state: >>> >>> 'While it is, of course, a f/2.8 lens regarding its speed potential, the >>> depth-of-field capabilities are actually not quite as impressive. In MFT >>> land you are "losing" about 2 f-stops here which obviously reduces the >>> creative potential of the lens quite a bit.' >>> >>> How did a narrow depth of field become a holy grail? >>> >>> That's a rather narrow concept. As anyone who has shot with medium format >>> and larger knows, often the 'creative potential' of a greater depth of >>> field >>> is what one struggles with. The depth of field is what it is. If you want >>> narrow, shoot 11x14. If you want deep, shoot a P&S. All have creative >>> potential. >>> >>> The high price of the 12-35/2.8 is a factor. But it is half the price of >>> the >>> Canon 24-70. >>> >>> I read photozone at times. The reviews are informative, but you have to >>> pay >>> attention to how they test and what their biases are. >>> >>> 'Cheap 'n cheerful' has resulted in a lens that provides similar >>> performance >>> for half the price. Doesn't seem like a bad trade-off to me. >>> >>> Henning >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2012-09-26, at 8:22 AM, A. Lal wrote: >>> >>>> LUgers may recall some months ago I posted to this list a question about >>>> using non-makers' lenses on the micro four thirds system. >>>> Specifically, I >>>> was interested to know how an Olympus body would handle a Panasonic lens >>>> and vice versa. >>>> >>>> Well the answer, disappointingly, according to the review of the >>>> Panasonic >>>> 12-35/2.8 zoom on photozone is that software corrections do not work >>>> with >>>> non-makers' lenses. While a Panasonic body will correct the 12-35 lens' >>>> significant distortions and chromatic aberrations, an Olympus body will >>>> not. This leads to the obvious question of how third party lenses will >>>> be >>>> handled by MFT bodies. Apparently software will be needed to correct for >>>> optical defects. The 12-35 Panasonic zoom is pretty poor in terms of >>>> distortion and chromatic aberrations and is very likely typical of upper >>>> consumer- grade lenses in today's marketplace. Make 'em cheap 'n >>>> cheerful >>>> to keep margins up, correct in software seems to be the way forward for >>>> the >>>> big MFT manufacturers. >>>> >>>> The review is here: >>>> >>>> http://www.photozone.de/m43/766_pana1235f28 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> >>> >>> Henning Wulff >>> henningw at archiphoto.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > Henning Wulff > henningw at archiphoto.com > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information