Kudos the the f/2 SHG lenses from a NatGeo video pro

Started Jan 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
Re: Answer:

Great Bustard wrote:

Forgottenbutnotgone wrote:

philosomatographer wrote:

Sorry for posting an image different to the parameters we were discussing, though it does show resolution close to the corner of the image, which was the point I was trying to make. I've posted a "flat" (well, distant) subject at f/2.0 below.

If you think you can find any Canon 70-200mm Zoom that can do this at f/4.0 at 70mm in the corner (my image was taken at f/2.0, remember) then please show me...

Then there is also the complete lack of chromatic aberration / purple fringing on the very high-contrast boundaries between the white (in sunlight) and the dark background - no Canon lens can do this on FF in the corners as well the the Zuiko does, and certainly your images show far more purple fringing in the corners, and that's at 200mm (anybody can make a good 200mm, it's more difficult to make a 70-200...)

Prove me wrong?

Is that a result of the lens itself, or of the format? In other words, if one were to use the Canon lens on the E-5 body, would the smaller sensor "trim the crusts off of the bread" so to speak? I admit, I'm ignorant, so I figure I'll ask the question today, so tomorrow I won't graduate to "stupid".

In this particular case, it is highly unlikely that a FF lens mounted on a 4/3 camera would do as well as the 35-100 / 2 due to the enlargement factor. That is, for two sensors that have the same pixel count and AA filter, a lens needs to be twice as sharp on 4/3 as a lens on FF.

The notion that smaller formats crop out the corners of the larger formats where lenses do worse has merit, of course. However, that doesn't mean that all lenses are equally sharp elsewhere. That said, there are many who use FF lenses on mFT and give good accounts, so...

In any case, like I said, the answer would depend on the lens, and there is no 35-100 / 2 for FF. Although, it's interesting now that I think about it, since all evidence points to the Olympus 35-100 / 2 being a FF design of a 70-200 / 2.8 but with a 0.5x FR (focal reducer) -- that's why it's so large, heavy, and expensive. Of course, that would make the lens a 35-100 / 1.4, so the lens has been artificially held back from being used wide open, like the 7-14 / 4:

this is likely the key point in why this fable isnt true

think about it


So, if we put a 0.5x FR on a Canon 70-200 / 4L IS, that would make a 35-100 / 2 for FF. Hmm -- I could see a few FF shooters having an interest in that, but not enough to make it profitable (they'd just use the primes in the range which would be smaller and faster).

-- hide signature --

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow