east
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Steve: thanks for your nice post! you made some valid points - thank you - but my bet is, some of these guys cannot properly read and comprehend. but then again, I am not a native speaker.
you are right, i should go back and correct all my typos - i always refer to a 3,5/28mm zuiko (obviously, there never was any 3,5/35mm zuiko), sorry for that. and yes, i have both 3,5/28mm and 2,0/28mm, acquired in that order.
I cant help but it seems to me, you are expressing same opinions as mine, but may be put in other words.
I never write about zeiss lens, nor I especially concentrate on canon lens. I say, my zuikos have generally more distorsion than the nikkors I used then, 10-15 years ago. Canon lenses btw. are also distorsion prone in my opinion, so may be the difference between the two (canon and zuiko) is not that big indeed. But coming form nikon, it is, at least concerning the lenses i have used.
I say, my zuikos are weaker at borders than my nikkors were, may be with the exeption to the normal lens, you are citing a test claiming just that.
The point on sample variaton is always valid, but I sincerely doubt that I am the only person in the world, that has got only dogs among his olympus lenses. I see weak borders, distorsion and CA in every zuiko picture I take. I see this and I wonder, but this doesn't stop me from using the stuff. And I see more of it than I was used to see in my Nikon era.
One more point: I primarly speak about my impressions of using two different lens *systems*, after i came back to use film again after a nearly 10 years' break. Think some people here are just not able to get it.
But who cares :-)
Oh, showing pictures: first I have none at hand right now (am travelling now), second how many pictures can I show? 2, 3, 8 even? this is too little, as opposite to an experience of actually using a lens over a longer period of time under various conditions. and thats what I am writing about.
i find this internet attitude "hey, this lens is better than that one, here the ultimative proof, look at my picture of the brick wall" very often misleading and not that informative at all. I bought quite a few lenses because of such tests, that turned out to be crap. now I prefer to talk to somebody who I trust. but thats just me.
Ok, so lets say it once again: zuiko lenses, on average, are still nice, because small, light and cheap, but there were much better lens (systems) out there. I even think, of the all major lens makers, olympus was probably the weakest one. at least this is *my* impression after spending some time with nikon, canon and - pentax.
have a nice day :-)
|
I wonder if you, however, are commenting on the 28mm f/3.5 lens or the 35mm f/2.8 lens for two reasons. First, you describe the lens as a 3,5/35mm and you do so twice in the quote, which seems like an odd typo to make twice. Second, you describe having a 28mm f/2 lens as well which makes me wonder why you would have both a 28mm f/2 and a 28mm f/3.5 and then skip to a 50mm. I have not noticed problems with either sharpness or distortion with my 28mm f/3.5 Zuiko. Further the claim that all Zuikos have problems with distortion compared to other lenses just doesn't seem to be born out in the testing that I have seen. For example, in testing 35mm lens slrlensreview finds that the 35mm f/2.8 to have less distortion than the excellent modern Zeiss ZF 35mm f/2. Here is a link to their findings: 
