Review of the 35-100 2.8. (Ephotozine)

Started Oct 4, 2012 | Discussions thread
Jogger Veteran Member • Posts: 8,441
not that big an issue

Robiro wrote:

As predicted, there are compromises to this lens. That is why it can not bear a Leica sign.

When you look at the first sample photo in full res (f4.5!!!), both lower corners show signs of heavy in-camera processing trying to camouflage the distortion and light fall off, resulting in visible artifacts and blurring.

Similarly to its brother 12-35mm lens, this lens heavily relies on PP because it is of smallest possible dimensions that do not provide any performance reserve, no cushion.

There could be problems when this lens is used with Olympus bodies.

Don't get me wrong, though. It is an excellent lens.

For a lot of folks, its a non-issue really. If youre doing sports, events, portraits, even weddings.. the corners are not super important since your subject is more or less centred or off-centre. It is preferble that the corners are better, but, in the name of compromise (to make things small), then they went with smallness.

This would not be ideal as a macro, reproduction, or landscape lens.

Heck, i still shoot my Nikon 70-200/2.8 on an FF body. Its got major corner issues compared to the v2 version. Works pretty well for me.

 Jogger's gear list:Jogger's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow