DanC.Licks wrote:
I think not only Oly lenses. There are very few lenses that are diffraction limited on cameras like the E-M1s with such small pixels.
Well, the Leica APO-Telyt-R 280/4 comes to mind. It's already diffraction limited wide open. One of my favorites.
Ah, yes, a gem indeed! Cost you an arm and a leg if you can find one. The 2.8 version is cheaper than the 4, maybe not as good...
My telescope expert friend has a new Canon 100-400 Mark II, and it is diffraction limited at ALL focal lengths! Amazing. See here: http://interferometrie.blogspot.co.at/ ... from July 5th. 90% Strehl at 300mm! Amazing for a zoom. My 400/5.6 is also diffraction limited, but only center frame, and it has the usual CA problem off center, as well as some distortion. Starts on the frame edges look like little footballs in the colors of the Italian flag. ;-) (Thank heavens for LR! Actually, RawTherapee does an even better job on CA).
But they have had to put a LOT of complicated glass in the zoom to get there. Compare it to the elegant, 7 element Telyt, and compare that to my three element APO 600mm scope which is pushing 98% Strehl. Sharp as a tack and not a hint of CA. See here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1465619/11#13985610
I did not remove any CA or fringing from the moon shots before stacking. Never had to. Great on birds too, but the bokeh is horrible, which is to be expected from an astro telescope. Still got a lot of use though, like these: https://www.flickr.com/photos/42162009@N04/albums/72157635228747166
I still use it some, but I am enjoying the mobility and the AF with the Canon 400/5.6 on my Oly.
Edit: About CA and the Canon 400/5.6... there are times when it can be a problem even in center frame, due to the absence of ED glass, no doubt. Like these 100% crops:
Hmmmmm, now I wonder... I was able to take a couple of test shots the other day with my friend's 100-400 II in my E-M1 Mark II to see how well it focuses*, and I have gone back to see what the CA situation is on a normal, daylight shot. Interesting....
Enough of these birds and Bifs.........How about some horses, for a change.
Spent the day at the track playing with the ponies and my E-M1 II/PanLeica 100-400. Arranged for some "official" photographer passes to be able to shoot on the rail and even laying under the rail for the turf races....... Great time and the E-M1 II / Leica combo did not disappoint.
Hmmmmm, now I wonder... I was able to take a couple of test shots the other day with my friend's 100-400 II in my E-M1 Mark II to see how well it focuses*, and I have gone back to see what the CA situation is on a normal, daylight shot. Interesting....
* Focused very well, but not at all if the in camera focus limiter was ingaged. That feature works great with the 400/5.6 and is a BIG help.
There was a problem with focus limit on the lens which has been corrected. The lens firmware needs to be updated to the latest version using the Olympus Viewer/Updater.
Laslo Varadi wrote:
There was a problem with focus limit on the lens which has been corrected. The lens firmware needs to be updated to the latest version using the Olympus Viewer/Updater.
I think you may be confusing the Canon 100-400 II and the Panasonic 100-400. I am not aware of firmware upgradability of the Canon 100-400 II that Dan was referring to in his post.
Thanks Mitesh for that wonderful super Kildeer portrait!
How far away were you?
So I went through the relatively time consuming process of AutoFocusMicroAdjustment (AFMA) for my four Olympus FT lenses on my E-M1.2
Here are the AFMA corrections I settled on for now by shooting markings on an oblique plane.
I used Tim Jackson's autofocus test chart. http://www.kscameraclub.org/docs/pdfs/focus_test_chart_edited.pdf
I don't think this finding comes from an accident.
It seems to me that Olympus adjusts their lenses in such a way that the actual focus point is located at the front/near end of the DOF.
So all four of my lenses are basically back focusing. I wonder whether it would be better to move the focus point more to the middle of the DOF?
That's what my AFMA corrections accomplish. What do you think is best? Feedback much appreciated. TIA.
Yes sir, it is close. Asides from the Canon 100-400 II, I've never owned a long lens that allows such close focusing. Getting that close is important for not just filling the frame and maximizing detail, but throwing both the foreground and background OOF, thus isolating your subject in a "Zeiss-like" (GASP!) 3-D manner .
One technical question for you and anyone else who is more knowledgeable than I (that should be easy): why do you need to perform AFMA on the E-M1.2 when it has on-sensor PDAF? I thought that eliminated the need for AFMA since you don't have a separate AF sensor that could be misaligned.
mitesh wrote:
I think you may be confusing the Canon 100-400 II and the Panasonic 100-400. I am not aware of firmware upgradability of the Canon 100-400 II that Dan was referring to in his post.
Mitesh i like this shot more than other shots. Not a typical one as far as birds are concerned. I think beauty comes from the back lit scene. Very beautiful.
mitesh wrote:
A quick snap from this morning. Today was one of those days that I consistently found my subjects on the wrong side of the light, oh well .
And one predictable question: how is it going with M43 in general and 300/4 specifically.
I am back from Rishikesh just now and though i enjoyed the company of 5D4, it was the combined weight of lenses and camera and so many small things in my shoulder bag that was pulling my neck down.
Sharp as a tack and not a hint of CA. See here:
.
