My OM lenses certainly vignette WAY more than my EF lenses, but it doesn't bother me too much. Part of the design was probably a bit of compromise in that regard. I think it was a good trade-off. The 21/2 is something like 1/3 the size of a Zeiss 21/2.8. It's sharper (and with less distortion) than most smaller and slower 20s.
I just wish there were a way of tricking the camera into applying vignetting correction for non-EF lenses.
As is true with any engineering problem, nothing is free. Everything is about compromise and choosing the primary goal for the final design. I don't know any specifics about Olympus but, I have also noticed there diminutive size when compared to other manufacturers. Both Pentax and Olympus have several pancake designs and smaller average size lenses. It seems the sacrifice in this design philosophy is vignetting.
brainiac wrote:
I'm specifically referring to a test I did between my Oly 28 f2 and Contax 28 f2.8 (or f2 - it was some time ago). I found that at a given shutter speed the Oly was not letting in as much light as expected when wide open. I estimated that the difference between f2.8 and f2 on that lens was only about 1/3 stop.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
The 77mm is a portrait lens, and it compares very well with other portrait lenses. Center sharpness is, still according to PZ, better than all 85mm lenses from Canikon. Edge sharpness is not, which is rarely a problem for portrait photography
As a person which most commonly use the rightmost and leftmost AF points I beg to differ.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I distinctly remember how "wowed" I was the first time I held an OM-1 up to my eye. That such a small camera could provide such an amazing viewfinder with incredible magnification blew me away.
+1
I have used Olympus for a few years some 20 years ago and have owned all OM-1, 2, 3 and 4. The gear was a pleasure to use, but the cameras in particular, probably due to design compromises to make them small, were prone to all kinds of mechanical problems.
