Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/09/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >