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