Olympus's Latest Buick Lens

[Glen Barrington]

I read somewhere that Zuiko translates to something like, "Light of the Gods". I believe Buick translates to, "Chariot of the Gods".
--
Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

 

[Gary Martin]

.....If you know of a lens that gives an equivalent FOV on your
Alpha for $400, lets hear about it.

That's the unique capability of the 4/3's system!

Cropping is a unique capability? I've had that with Photoshop for a long, long time

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com

 

[BorisK1]

Sigma 18-200 (without OS) is very much the same as Digital Zuiko 18-180.

Now, Sigma 18-200 costs $379.00 at bhphoto.
DZ 18-180 costs $399.95 at bhphoto.

So there's a $20 markup for the Zuiko brand name and four thirds electronics.

Now, Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG (which has the same element diagram as DZ 70-300) costs $219.00 at bhphoto.

However, before we conclude that the DZ 70-300 will cost $240.00, consider a possibility that may not be a simple rebadge (it weights 70 grams more than the Sigma).

Here are the links for the two lenses:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3
http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/70-300_40-56/

 

[Flavio E]

Thanks. That answers it. The thing costs twice as much as a
comparable Sony or Sigma/Tamron third party lens for most other
cameras. I thought the idea of the 4/3 system was slightly smaller
sensor, but therefore smaller and less expensive bodies and lenses.
I had an Oly E-20, but I was reluctant to get into a system with
the smallest sensor of all DSLRs. When I saw the 10mp Sony A100,
that was it. And I'm glad. The Olys are probably fine cameras, but
the smaller sensor and apparently the higher costs make it less
attractive to me, so I just wanted to confirm that.

Happy with my Sony,

.....If you know of a lens that gives an equivalent FOV on your
Alpha for $400, lets hear about it.

That's the unique capability of the 4/3's system!

Well said. We're not talking about a "third party" lens but an original Olympus Zuiko lens. There is no bad performer on the zuiko digital lens lineup (except maybe the 18-180mm superzoom), so we can expect this lens to be of excellent optical performance.

 

[Izu]

Ever heard about "cropping", photosite size, quantum efficency and other few little things?

If the only advantage of 4/3 is cropping we're lost, Sony will make a 16 Mpxl APS CCD that will let people crop images to 10 Mpxl with the same quality and FOV of 4/3 cameras, without that "little" problem with wideangles...

4/3 MUST reduce dimensions over 35mm or APS lenses, otherwise is only a crop... have you ever seen 35mm lenses the same size of 6x4,5 lenses? Why can't Olympus do the same thing?
--
Andrea

 

[Erik Magnuson]

due to consistently having higher sensor resolution
in l/mm.

It has finer pixel pitch. That is not necessarily higher resolution

If you look at Phil's review raw comparison to the 400D:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page24.asp
The 400D seems to have a slight advantage to start.

Now the physical height difference between the 400D and E-410 sensor is 12%.

That's about the same difference in theoretical "resolution" between the 350D and the 400D -- which are essentially indistinguishable according to Phil's 400D review. So if you shot the same scene with the same lens and upsized the 400D image by 12% (linear) to match the E-410 target pixel height, do you really think you could see a difference?

--
Erik

 

[BorisK1]

Like, wow - is that true? Same exact lens system? What's up with that?

It's called rebadge. Sigma modifies its design to Olympus specifications (meaning, adds a four-thirds mount and electronics), and manufacturers the lens under Digital Zuiko brand name.

Same thing happened with Sigma 18-200 (non-OS version): It became Digital Zuiko 18-180.

Boris

 

[BorisK1]

Sigma 18-200's price could be way down since the OS version came out. So my logic isn't quite sound. Looking at MSRP only adds confusion:

$600.00 USD for Sigma 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 DC
$440.00 USD for Olympus 18-180mm F3.5-6.3
$300.00 USD for Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO

Still, I'd say that $399 is on the high side.

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Angle of view is what counts in telephoto lenses,

No, resolving power of the lens/sensor system is what counts. If I use the same lens on a 400D and crop, then it's like pretending the 400D is a 350D. In other words I'd be using only 2300 of my vertical pixels (2592*13/14.8). Think this difference (e.g. the effective difference between the 350D and 400D) is significant? You need to read Phil's reviews again if you do.

--
Erik

 

[BorisK1]

Well said. We're not talking about a "third party" lens but an
original Olympus Zuiko lens. There is no bad performer on the zuiko
digital lens lineup (except maybe the 18-180mm superzoom), so we
can expect this lens to be of excellent optical performance.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but until yesterday, the 18-180mm superzoom is known to be the only rebadge of a Sigma. The 70-300 is looking to be the second one with direct Sigma heritage. On the wide end, the published MTF charts show it to be the softest four thirds lens to date. On the long end, things are better - but there you have to deal with the slowness of the lens. Perhaps the E-510's stabilization will fix that, but my E-300 isn't stabilized.

Anyway, I wouldn't expect it to be a stellar performer - but it's a great addition for the "standard" line of lenses. Great for a moon shot, or for birding on a bright day.

 

[GregF]

The article lead-in says "the new lens lives up to the Four Thirds
promise of lighter, more compact optics measuring 127mm (5") long
and weighing a mere 620g."

Well, let's compare:

Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG MACRO: 122mm and 550g
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, 122mm and 480g
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED, 125mm and 517g

Yes, lets. The Oly lens on 4/3rds has 600mm eq field of view, which of the lenses/systems you show have that? I see 480mm on the Canon APS systems, so are you comparing apples to apples?

This is the "Four Thirds promise"? It's longer and heavier than
all of the competitors' lenses except for image stabilized lenses.

--
Erik

 

[FFS]

.....If you know of a lens that gives an equivalent FOV on your
Alpha for $400, lets hear about it.

That's the unique capability of the 4/3's system!

Cropping is a unique capability? I've had that with Photoshop for a
long, long time

Which also reminds me of Photoshop upsizing, which negates any camera unique capability with a larger number of pixels or sensor.

Genuine Fractals claims 10X enlargement (1000%) with no loss of quality. So that would put any 10 Mpixel camera output on equal standing with a 100 Mpixel one.

http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2

 

[GregF]

due to consistently having higher sensor resolution
in l/mm.

It has finer pixel pitch. That is not necessarily higher resolution

If you look at Phil's review raw comparison to the 400D:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusE410/page24.asp
The 400D seems to have a slight advantage to start.

Now the physical height difference between the 400D and E-410
sensor is 12%.
That's about the same difference in theoretical "resolution"
between the 350D and the 400D -- which are essentially
indistinguishable according to Phil's 400D review. So if you shot
the same scene with the same lens and upsized the 400D image by 12%
(linear) to match the E-410 target pixel height, do you really
think you could see a difference?

I'd rather take the picture, and not have to upsize anything.

--
Erik

 

[rander3127]

Thanks. That answers it. The thing costs twice as much as a
comparable Sony or Sigma/Tamron third party lens for most other
cameras. I thought the idea of the 4/3 system was slightly smaller
sensor, but therefore smaller and less expensive bodies and lenses.
I had an Oly E-20, but I was reluctant to get into a system with
the smallest sensor of all DSLRs. When I saw the 10mp Sony A100,
that was it. And I'm glad. The Olys are probably fine cameras, but
the smaller sensor and apparently the higher costs make it less
attractive to me, so I just wanted to confirm that.

Happy with my Sony,

Gary Eickmeier

--Tell us how to get 300mm at f5.6 without at least 53mm of clear lens aperture, regardless of sensor size??
-Rich



http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/

 

[BJL]

According to the E-410 review, its actual resolution in l/mm is higher than for the D40x or 400D.

Vertical res. is the same 1800l/ph for all three so the E-410 has an advantage in l/mm in proportion to the ratio of picture heights: 14.8/13 or 14% better than the 400D, 15.7/13 or 20% better than the D40X.

Horizontal l/ph is a bit less for the E-410, 2050/2200 or about 7% less, but that still comes out to 7%-13% more l/mm.

The differences are not huge, but that is because of the often ignored fact that ...

4/3" format is not so much smaller than EF-S or DX format, and so all the so often claimed advantages or disadvantages of 4/3 compared to "APS-C" formats are in fact rather modest.

 

[Tim in upstate NY]

.....If you know of a lens that gives an equivalent FOV on your
Alpha for $400, lets hear about it.

That's the unique capability of the 4/3's system!

Cropping is a unique capability? I've had that with Photoshop for a
long, long time

...So how soon will you be trading in that 1.5 cropped image sensor Pentax for a full frame Canon 5D?

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I'd rather take the picture, and not have to upsize anything.

What? You don't print and only show your images on 3648 x 2736 screens? One way or another, you will resize if you want to show your work.

--
Erik

 

[Erik Magnuson]

According to the E-410 review, its actual resolution in l/mm is
higher than for the D40x or 400D.

Yes, you can measure a difference using a specially constructed high-contrast test chart. The same applied to 350D vs. 400D. But if you look at the actual images (particularly the raw image sample I referred to), you are unlikely to see any significant differences unless you find regular detail right at the resolution limit(s).

At lot depends on the processing. For example, Photozone.de uses a max number for the 350D of 2150 lw/ph compared to the 1650 that Phil measured using in-camera JPEG. But that raw processor (RSP) does particularly well on test charts.

4/3" format is not so much smaller than EF-S or DX format,

It's shrinking (but so have the Rebel sensors). The Kodak sensors were all 13.5mm high while the Panny sensors seem to be only 13mm.

--
Erik

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Yes, lets. The Oly lens on 4/3rds has 600mm eq field of view,
which of the lenses/systems you show have that? I see 480mm on the
Canon APS systems, so are you comparing apples to apples?

If you read the other posts above, I am comparing apples to apples. I'm just comparing different apples than diagonal FOV.

--
Erik

 

[Erik37]

4/3" format is not so much smaller than EF-S or DX format,

It's shrinking (but so have the Rebel sensors). The Kodak sensors
were all 13.5mm high while the Panny sensors seem to be only 13mm.

No, the 13.5mm was the total height, 13.0mm is the active height.

17.3x13.0mm gives a crop factor of 2.00x.

Just my two oere
Erik from Sweden