Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > It's official. Olympus no longer makes good lenses

Reply
Thread Tools

It's official. Olympus no longer makes good lenses

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
The 25mm f2.8, the 17mm f2.8, the 14-42 collapsing kit lens, now the
14-150mm zoom. They all suck. Olympus used to be the poster-child
for good lenses, even their kit lenses shon and their pro and top pro
lenses were phenomenal. Now they are all junk, and overpriced junk to
boot! $600 for a lens that despite its wide range is really just a
cheap, plastic kit lens, with mediocre optical performance more
fitting of some of the crap we've seen for APS sensors..

http://dpreview.com/lensreviews/olym..._o20/page4.asp
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
>... 14-150mm zoom. They all suck.



You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>>
>>... 14-150mm zoom. They all suck.

>
>
> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks.



And you sir, have presented no evidence of your claimed connection with
Olympus.



--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On Jun 24, 3:06*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >... 14-150mm zoom. *They all suck.

>
> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks.


Aside from the mediocre review you mean?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2010
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Jun 24, 3:06*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >... 14-150mm zoom. *They all suck.

>>
>> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks.

>
>Aside from the mediocre review you mean?



It was a mediocre piece of writing, that's for sure. But it told us
very little about the lens - much less than you claim.

You should wait for a review from a known source before jumping to any
conclusions.



 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-25-2010
RichA wrote:
> The 25mm f2.8, the 17mm f2.8, the 14-42 collapsing kit lens, now the
> 14-150mm zoom. They all suck. Olympus used to be the poster-child
> for good lenses, even their kit lenses shon and their pro and top pro
> lenses were phenomenal.


It's a different world. They made the decision to not compete against
Nikon and Canon in the pro and prosumer markets when they went the 4:3
route for their digital SLRs, basing that decision not only on the huge
costs of competing in that market but on the fact that the
consumer-grade market is far larger. What they didn't realize is that
even most consumers look at the big picture (no pun intended) and want
to buy into a system that has a future. Now that 4:3 has failed
commercially, Olympus is betting on Micro 4:3, but the early equipment
has been disappointing to put it mildly.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-25-2010
On Jun 24, 7:50*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jun 24, 3:06*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >... 14-150mm zoom. *They all suck.

>
> >> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks.

>
> >Aside from the mediocre review you mean?

>
> It was a mediocre piece of writing, that's for sure. *But it told us
> very little about the lens - much less than you claim.
>


Hardly. The resolution figures are awful as are the CA figures.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2010
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>The 25mm f2.8, the 17mm f2.8, the 14-42 collapsing kit lens, now the
>14-150mm zoom. They all suck.


In rich's world everybody MUST pay $5000 for each lens in order to
meet his standards for quality. Lenses must have the finest optics
and not contain any plastic, even if it means that they weight five
pounds and can only zoom by a factor of two.

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2010
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:59:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>On Jun 24, 7:50*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jun 24, 3:06*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> >> wrote:

>>
>> >> >... 14-150mm zoom. *They all suck.

>>
>> >> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks.

>>
>> >Aside from the mediocre review you mean?

>>
>> It was a mediocre piece of writing, that's for sure. *But it told us
>> very little about the lens - much less than you claim.
>>

>
>Hardly. The resolution figures are awful as are the CA figures.



What on earth do you expect from a 10.7X zoom? The optical
performance is on a par with the much more expensive Panasonic lens of
the same focal length range. The Olympus is therefore quite a
bargain.

Anyone expecting optical excellence will inevitably be disappointed by
any 10X zoom. The Olympus and Panasonic 14-150mm lenses are the
direct equivalent of the 28-300mm consumer grade zooms for 35mm SLRs,
or 18-200mm consumer grade zooms for APS-C (DX) DSLRs. Some are
better than others, but there just aren't any *good* ones. The laws
of physics don't allow a cheap 10X zoom lens to perform well.

No matter how much you diss it, the Olympus M ZD 14-150mm is no worse
than any other 10X zoom lens, and is probably better than most. It is
a lens for those who value convenience and a reasonable price over
ultimate optical quality.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-27-2010
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>(E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4c25b1d0$0$1593
>$(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>The 25mm f2.8, the 17mm f2.8, the 14-42 collapsing kit lens, now the
>>>14-150mm zoom. They all suck.

>>
>> In rich's world everybody MUST pay $5000 for each lens in order to
>> meet his standards for quality. Lenses must have the finest optics
>> and not contain any plastic, even if it means that they weight five
>> pounds and can only zoom by a factor of two.

>
>No, duncecap, that's the rub. Olympus's DSLR kit lenses cost a pittance
>and they worked very well.


How many of those kit lenses had a 10x zoom?

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
And yet recent Olympus lenses aren't so good RichA Digital Photography 0 08-06-2010 03:18 AM
What makes the tiny digicams lenses so good? Don W Digital Photography 30 10-31-2006 01:54 PM
Olympus OM lenses to Olympus E-500 camera. Pvest Digital Photography 11 02-25-2006 07:43 PM
Re: Good place to get used Olympus lenses? Andreas Schmidt Digital Photography 1 04-01-2004 02:40 PM
Olympus E-1 + 14-54 and 50-200 lenses for $2875. Good deal? Tom Digital Photography 1 11-14-2003 11:16 AM



Advertisments