Telecentricity in Micro Four Thirds.

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
alatchin
Contributing MemberPosts: 759Gear list
Like?
Re: Thanks for the info ...
In reply to Steve_, 9 months ago

Steve_ wrote:

I'm not sure this isn't a product of how large and optically uncompromised the 4/3s zooms were. It's hard to correct a lens as fully when compactness and light weight are leading priorities.

Large? I don' think they were too large but I agree that maybe we as users did not appreciate fully how good those lenses were.

Compare the size of the Oly 4/3 7-14 to that of the Panasonic m43 7-14,

A lot of the size savings from the 7-14 seem to be due to the mirror box in this case creating the need for a more complex design... Also the Olympus seems to have little to no issues unlike the Panasonic lens which has had a number o fhtreads about purple flare?

14-35/2.0 to the 12-35/2.8,

Software correction and a 1 stop aperture difference... Also the 12-35 doesnt even compare well against the 12-60 43rds lens for sharpness, let alone the 14-35.

12-60/2.8-4 to the 12-50

Again here one is a 2.8-4 and the other a much slower lens (cant remember the fstops). The first has no software correction and a greater range... Of course the lens is bigger. It is a far superior product in every way.

and the 300f2.8 to anything and get back to me on that one. These are large lenses, even by APS-C standards.

Actually it isn't. Compare the 300mm f2.8 to a 300mm f2.8 OR compare it to a 400mm f2.8 for APSC (allowing for a performance advantage to the APSC sensor) and the Canon 400mm f2.8 costs over $11,000 and weighs 3850g

While the 400mm f4 lens from canon is smaller and lighter it will underperform for noise and costs about the same as the Olympus lens.

There is no free lunch, software correction and slow apertures will make smaller lenses. These smaller lenses will not outperform larger lenses for IQ reasons, they will have different advantages (size portability, comfort in use, price etc.)

If you want to buy a bigger system with a slower lens, you may not get the results hoped for as bumping ISO doesnt always result in equivalent images as the sensor with the higher ISO loses colour fidelity and DR while at the higher ISO settings.

I never said 'too' large, but for me they certainly are. And they were for the market, as well. Hence m43.

I am not sure they were too large for the market. The 12-60 and 50-200, 50mm macro 35mm macro, 9-19 etc etc etc were all well sized well specc'ed lenses for a good price. Bringing up the 300mm f2.8 is like me bringing up the sigma 150-500 f2.8 FF lens

It seems 43rds was abandoned for better market potential, and DSLR pressure from a re-invigorated Pentax and Minolta mounts. Olympus most likely saw the reduction of FF pricing and shifted it USP to small, trendy lifestyle products at the lower end, and now small highly specc'ed advanced products at the high end.

Abraham

-- hide signature --

“You don’t take a photograph, you make it.” -Ansel Adams
blog.alatchinphotography(dot)com

 alatchin's gear list:alatchin's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus PEN E-P2 Olympus PEN E-PL2 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus PEN E-PL5 +20 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow