Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/10/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]We're going to have to disagree on this point. Unless we actually know the glass content of these lenses, which I certainly do not, any discussion will speculative. In any case a fairer comparison for a Canon full frame L series lens would be one of the old pro- grade Olympus 4/3 (not MFT) lenses. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henning Wulff" <henningw at archiphoto.com> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:19 PM 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 >