Those wonderful Olympus lenses...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Knild, Feb 19, 2005.

  1. Knild

    Knild Guest

    Knild, Feb 19, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Knild

    Guest

    One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.

    The guy didn't return.

    No mention of possible filter problems.

    He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
    either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
    darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
    methodically investigated post..)

    Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.

    Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.

    It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
    gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
    sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!

    So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
    is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.

    Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
    indeed.
     
    , Feb 19, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Knild

    Knild Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.
    >
    > The guy didn't return.
    >
    > No mention of possible filter problems.
    >
    > He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
    > either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
    > darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
    > methodically investigated post..)
    >
    > Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.
    >
    > Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.
    >
    > It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
    > gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
    > sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!
    >
    > So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
    > is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.
    >
    > Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
    > indeed.



    You miss the point - there has been an awful lot of hoo-hah in the Oly forum
    about the expected new lenses from Olympus (expressed in the usual
    nauseating manner of the Askey forums - 'Sweeeeet', Awesome' etc etc) and a
    good deal of bashing anyone who demurs from the forum stance that
    Olympus-photographic-equipment-is-manufactured-in-heaven-by-Angels-and-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-just-a-demon-incarnate.

    One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
    prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
    have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
    seem to work very well!

    But, apparently not - and (as they doubtless chuckle in the Olympus
    boardroom) 'A foolish Olympus owner and his money are very easily parted"
     
    Knild, Feb 19, 2005
    #3
  4. Knild

    Basic Wedge Guest

    No doubt about it, those shots do show signs of vignette. I wonder if the
    guy had any sort of filter mounted on his lens. Possibly he did, and
    possibly that was the cause.

    Technically good shots otherwise - absolutely no signs of "banding", so, at
    least, we can be certain they weren't taken with a 20D :)

    Rob
     
    Basic Wedge, Feb 19, 2005
    #4
  5. Knild

    Lourens Smak Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:


    > Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.


    Especially since the E1 has the option to switch on automatic
    shading-compensation in camera. (or you can do it aftwerwards on the
    PC, automatically.)

    Lourens
     
    Lourens Smak, Feb 19, 2005
    #5
  6. "Knild" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=12317645
    >
    >
    > Sheesh! - a 500 GBP lens on a 1000 GBP camera - and STILL the Oly maniacs
    > won't admit that there's a problem!


    When I read that thread in the forum, it looked like that they _do_ admit
    the problem. Look you're always going to have a couple of people that will
    never admit any flaw with anything they've purchased, as if it makes them
    lose face to ever do so. But most people are not so sensitive, and are more
    interested in solving the problem then denying it exists.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Feb 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Knild

    Guest

    My point was - is there much of that *here*?

    I see far more Nikon, Canon, and Leica `maniacs` here, and if you think
    it is solely Olympus owners, perhaps you need to investigate human
    nature...

    FWIW, I *do* own an Olympus camera - the C8080 (amongst other Pentax,
    Minolta and Bronica film equipment, and Canon and Sony digitals). The
    Oly is a very good fit to my needs as a general purpose camera. It has
    some stupid menu arrangements, and the software designers need to go
    back to school. But that doesn't stop it from having a lens and sensor
    that, at low ISO's (which is what I shoot), beats your average DSLR for
    resolution, right through it's 28-140 lens range. In one very portable
    little package. Not perfect, but not bad either. Do Olympus make some
    excellent, some good, some bad lenses? - Yes, of course they do, just
    like any other manufacturer. Are there Olympus fanatics? - Yes, of
    course, just like Leica fanatics, Nikon..etc.., but I don't see them
    causing a great problem here, nor do I see that forum example as
    evidence.

    Am I an Olympus fanatic? Am I foolish for buying the 8080? - you just
    made a sweeping generalisation that says I am, based on...? Yet I
    criticise Olympus for their design errors as I would any brand, and I
    think I made a good choice in the 8080, for the requirement I have.

    And I think it would be just a little silly to condemn all products
    from any manufacturer on one or two, or even three.., lenses or
    cameras. Name your brand, and I'm sure I (or others more knowledgable)
    could happily name the crap lenses/cameras *they* have created..
     
    , Feb 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Knild

    Basic Wedge Guest

    Oh CRAP!

    I've done it again...

    I just pointed out 1 (one) of the _MANY_ flaws in Canon's 20D model, and all
    the Canon-loving trolls have scuttled back into the shadows like so many
    cockroaches. They just don't have much fortitude for this type of thing :)

    Rob (Canon FD user)
     
    Basic Wedge, Feb 20, 2005
    #8
  9. Knild

    Stacey Guest

    Knild wrote:

    > One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
    > prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
    > have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
    > seem to work very well!
    >



    You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will tell
    you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
    line-up.This 'problem' is mainly at 54mm wide open as well.


    The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
    setting to compensate, which this newbie user didn't have turned on. Can't
    blame the camera when the users won't read the manual! :) Also unless the
    contrast is SUPER cranked it's hard to even see.

    You did leave out his coment:

    "I migrated south (in pixels that is) from the 20d and find the E-1
    enviroment just right! Wonderful camera and a pleasure to use."

    Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not going
    to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never going
    to use though..

    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Feb 20, 2005
    #9
  10. Knild

    Knild Guest

    "Stacey" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will
    > tell
    > you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
    > line-up<


    Fair enough - but it's a 500 GBP 'dog', that's a lot of money to pay for a
    substandard lens.


    > The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
    > setting to compensate<


    So, are you saying that Olympus were aware from the outset that the Four
    Thirds system had inherent problems, and built a compensation device into
    their camera?- what about the 300? - does that have the fault rectification
    built in as well?


    > Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not
    > going
    > to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never
    > going
    > to use though<



    I'm posting purely as someone who is looking to buy a DSLR in the very near
    future - and who wants to get the best value for money (which means far more
    than just initial price) possible.
     
    Knild, Feb 20, 2005
    #10
  11. Knild

    Stacey Guest

    Knild wrote:

    >
    > "Stacey" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> You obviously haven't done much research, almost any olympus user will
    >> tell
    >> you the "standard" zooms, especially the 14-54 is the dog of their lens
    >> line-up<

    >
    > Fair enough - but it's a 500 GBP 'dog', that's a lot of money to pay for a
    > substandard lens.


    That's why I didn't buy it. But I think "substandard" is pretty harsh for a
    lens that has very minor vignetting at the long end wide open. Almost any
    zoom with this wide a range is going to have issues somewhere in it's range
    and how much does the canon/nikon f2.8 equiv lens cost? I bet it's not
    $500.

    I'm waiting for the 14-35 F2 to come in and even if it's $1500, I'll
    probably get one.


    >
    >
    >> The 14-54 lens has this issue, but then again the camera has a "shading"
    >> setting to compensate<

    >
    > So, are you saying that Olympus were aware from the outset that the Four
    > Thirds system had inherent problems,


    The "system" doesn't have this problem, just looks like this one lens does
    at the long end of it's range. And IMHO if you look at "normal" images, you
    don't even see it. This guy cranked the contrast to maximum settings to see
    this, many said they have never noticed it. But yes it is there and
    probably why they put this setting in the camera menu.

    BTW here's how the canon 28-105 and 28-135 lenses rate to one user. The
    latter is a $400 lens/paperweight and both are a stop slower than the ZD
    lens is.

    =========
    http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm




    I encourage you to look at the images below for yourself, but here is how I
    interpret these images.


    Both lenses are pretty blurry at wide apertures at all focal lengths. For my
    purposes, neither of these lenses are usable at wide apertures. In fact, I
    was unable to find any combination of aperture and focal length where the
    edges were as sharp as the center.

    The Canon 28-135 seems to perform slightly better at 28mm, particularly at
    wide apertures, but still isn't very good. Given that I wouldn't want to
    use either lens at wide apertures, I consider this superiority to be of
    academic interest only.

    The Canon 28-105 is clearly better at 105mm. The edges in particular are
    much sharper using the Canon 28-105 lens than the Canon 28-135 lens. Even
    at F11, the edges of the Canon 28-135mm lens are considerably softer than
    the center.

    At 50mm, things seem pretty even. Both are soft at the edges wide open,
    although the center of the 28-135mm lens is slightly sharper at wide
    apertures.

    The canon 28-105 shows less contrast, and the images are slightly
    "warmer" (more of a red tint).

    Although this is not apparent from these test shots, I felt that the Canon
    28-135 was not uniform in its softness. At wide angle, the right edge of
    the image appears softer than the left. At longer focal lengths, the top of
    the image is softer than the the bottom. In contrast, the softness of the
    edges of the Canon 28-105 was roughly uniform. For these crops I picked
    areas from the softer edges of the Canon 28-135, so these may represent a
    "worst-case" scenario.
    =================


    Now that sounds/looks like some crappy optics to me! Did you see the test
    images? I think I could live with a touch of vignetting rather than a lens
    that's unusable wide open?

    Heres some test sniplets from the zuiko 11-22 ZD.

    http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/E300/11-22.html

    From wide open to f11, it works fine.


    If you want equal optical performance to the expencive zuiko's, you're going
    to have to buy the expencive Canon L glass. If you think the cheap or old
    skool optics are going to work good on a 20D or even a 10D, you're
    dreaming.



    >
    >
    >> Every camera has it's issues and these are no exceptions. I'm sure not
    >> going
    >> to waste my time trying to -troll- for problems on a camera I'm never
    >> going
    >> to use though<

    >
    >
    > I'm posting purely as someone who is looking to buy a DSLR in the very
    > near future - and who wants to get the best value for money (which means
    > far more than just initial price) possible.



    You sure seem to be posting mainly olympus bashing posts. I'm not sure what
    you're point is? These work fine for some people, if you don't like their
    "features" buy something else. When I was looking, I wasn't posting canon
    or nikon bashing posts. This sort of posting smells like a troll to me.

    But anyway you sure sound like a perfect canidate for a canon. Have fun
    cleaning your sensor and using 20 year old optical designs!! :)



    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, Feb 20, 2005
    #11
  12. Knild

    Boch Guest

    Certainly, the Canon does reign...Being a Nikon user...I found it rather
    hard to swallow...Dumb butts like you...Make it worse...Your such a baby.

    --
    _________________-
    BOCH
    ________________
    A+TECH
    _________
    "Basic Wedge" <> wrote in message
    news:zCRRd.438030$Xk.432544@pd7tw3no...
    > Oh CRAP!
    >
    > I've done it again...
    >
    > I just pointed out 1 (one) of the _MANY_ flaws in Canon's 20D model, and
    > all the Canon-loving trolls have scuttled back into the shadows like so
    > many cockroaches. They just don't have much fortitude for this type of
    > thing :)
    >
    > Rob (Canon FD user)
    >
    >
     
    Boch, Feb 21, 2005
    #12
  13. Knild

    Skip M Guest

    "Basic Wedge" <> wrote in message
    news:zCRRd.438030$Xk.432544@pd7tw3no...
    > Oh CRAP!
    >
    > I've done it again...
    >
    > I just pointed out 1 (one) of the _MANY_ flaws in Canon's 20D model, and
    > all the Canon-loving trolls have scuttled back into the shadows like so
    > many cockroaches. They just don't have much fortitude for this type of
    > thing :)
    >
    > Rob (Canon FD user)
    >
    >


    Which flaw did you point out, and where did you point it out?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Feb 21, 2005
    #13
  14. Knild

    Jim Attfield Guest

    Careful, your (big) chip (on your left shoulder) is showing :)

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:24:28 -0000, "Knild" <>
    wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> One *forum* post. Not a DPR review.
    >>
    >> The guy didn't return.
    >>
    >> No mention of possible filter problems.
    >>
    >> He even posted a contradictory image - you can't have it both ways,
    >> either it vignettes or it doesn't. (Yes, I know it's probably just sky
    >> darkening, but the point is, this isn't a very scientific or
    >> methodically investigated post..)
    >>
    >> Some others on the post agreed, some didn't.
    >>
    >> Vignetting is not especially difficult to deal with.
    >>
    >> It may well be a problem with the lens design, and if it is.. well,
    >> gee, no other manufacturer has ever made errors or produced
    >> sub-standard products, or made a design compromise, now have they?!
    >>
    >> So which Oly maniacs are not admitting to a problem, and what exactly
    >> is that `problem`? Expanding on that, might make this a useful post.
    >>
    >> Or is this just a generic whine from *another* brand maniac? Sheesh
    >> indeed.

    >
    >
    >You miss the point - there has been an awful lot of hoo-hah in the Oly forum
    >about the expected new lenses from Olympus (expressed in the usual
    >nauseating manner of the Askey forums - 'Sweeeeet', Awesome' etc etc) and a
    >good deal of bashing anyone who demurs from the forum stance that
    >Olympus-photographic-equipment-is-manufactured-in-heaven-by-Angels-and-anyone-who-says-otherwise-is-just-a-demon-incarnate.
    >
    >One would have thought that their underwear dampening excitement at the
    >prospect of paying Olympus huge prices for the precious new lenses would
    >have been somewhat tempered by the knowledge that the existing ones don't
    >seem to work very well!
    >
    >But, apparently not - and (as they doubtless chuckle in the Olympus
    >boardroom) 'A foolish Olympus owner and his money are very easily parted"
    >
     
    Jim Attfield, Feb 23, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Distressed
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    427
    Distressed
    Nov 6, 2003
  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=

    OT: A wonderful drink for the holidays

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=, Dec 30, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    428
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=
    Dec 31, 2003
  3. bigal

    A most wonderful gift from my wife!

    bigal, Jan 30, 2006, in forum: Case Modding
    Replies:
    64
    Views:
    9,319
    The Modfather
    Feb 12, 2006
  4. Pvest

    Olympus OM lenses to Olympus E-500 camera.

    Pvest, Feb 23, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    2,012
    Darrell Larose
    Feb 25, 2006
  5. 88059355

    The Wonderful World Of Contact Lenses

    88059355, Jan 15, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    313
    88059355
    Jan 15, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page