 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2005Pictures of new Olympus lenses
http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses.php > http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses.php Ack, now I've got to wipe the drool out of my keyboard. >> http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses.php > >Ack, now I've got to wipe the drool out of my keyboard. Thanks for posting this link. Nice glass. If anyone doubted Olympus' long term commitment to the Four Thirds system, they shouldn't now. The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film SLR or APS/full frame DSLR systems. I was amused by the personal comments on the site, especially: "All other camera manufacturers have introduced double-digit megapixel cameras, and Olympus should be with them." Obviously the guy's never heard of Pentax and Minolta. ;-) "The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film SLR or APS/full frame DSLR systems. " These two lenses are obviously comparable to 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses that have been available for years in 35mm format. The only real difference being a single stop in speed, which does not seem to push them off into "remote" territory. After all, Olympus needs that extra stop of speed just to regain some of the selective-focus and image noise characteristics it loses by having a smaller sensor. If Olympus really wanted to do something truly incomparable, then why not go for something really innovative, like a 10-100mm or 14-350mm zoom? (or even 14-4200mm!), or a 4mm zero-distortion prime? I suggest you attend Conference 5865 at the SPIE annual meeting in San Diego later this summer if you want to learn more: http://spie.org/Conferences/Programs/05/am/conferences/index.cfm?fuseaction=5865 Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > "The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no > other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > real difference being a single stop in speed, which does not seem to > push them off into "remote" territory. [] Size and weight advantages? "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: >> "The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no >> other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Size and weight advantages? I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light conditions. If one stop is really only a minor improvement, perhaps BC could explain why other manufacturers didn't do this years ago ... ;-) Of course this is a truly astonishing achievement by Olympus, and I for one cannot wait to see how these lenses perform. > I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even > got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole > stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum > apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light > conditions. Since other sensors give better signal/noise at 2 and 3 stops faster, this 1 stop difference is simply not enough. Otherwise, likely fine lenses. > If one stop is really only a minor improvement, perhaps BC could > explain why other manufacturers didn't do this years ago ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Of course this is a truly astonishing achievement by Olympus, and I > for one cannot wait to see how these lenses perform. At ISO 100 and 200, even 400, probably quite well.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even >> got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Since other sensors give better signal/noise at 2 and 3 stops faster, (2 .. 3 stops In ISO, for avoidance of doubt). > this 1 stop difference is simply not enough. "A whole stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light conditions." . I assume you are aware that low-light performance depends on ISO value as well as lens speed. If the 4/3 cameras maintain equal image quality to a larger format camera at a given ISO value, then you are correct that the one stop increase represents a real improvement. One the other hand, if a full-frame camera has at least a one-stop ISO advantage (due to lower image noise, for instance), then there is no low-light advantage at all to Olympus. I would agree with with David Taylor that there may be some size/weight advantages, but this is certainly a different issue than low-light performance. So lets say you are shooting an E-300 at ISO 1600 using one of these new lenses wide open at f/2. Compare that to shooting a Canon 1DsII with a comparable lens at f/2.8 with ISO set to 3200. Obviously, the exposure is the same in each case, so the interesting question is "which image looks better?". I know which one I'd bet on. If the image quality is identical, then the low-light capability of the two cameras using f/2 and f/2.8 lenses, respectively, is the same. However, if the Canon image is better, then the Canon has *better* low light capability. And if the Canon camera with f/2.8 lens can produce an equal or better image at ISO 3200 than the Olympus with f/2 can at ISO 800, then the Canon system will, in your words, have a *massive* (i.e. one stop) low-light advantage over Olympus. So let the tests begin! f/2 zooms haven't appeared for use with 35mm still cameras because of size/cost constraints, and not because of any inherent difficulty in their design. They are available in 35mm cinematography, where size and cost aren't nearly as important. In smaller formats there are superb zooms available that are faster than f/2. However, if you speed up the lenses only to have to use a lower ISO due to image noise problems, then you haven't gained any low-light advantage, and you may even have lost some. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com >"A whole >stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >their design. They are available in 35mm cinematography, where size >and cost aren't nearly as important. Neither is image quality. -Rich "Neither is image quality. " What are you referring to? Brian www.caldwellphtographic.com <snip> > f/2 zooms haven't appeared for use with 35mm still cameras because of > size/cost constraints, and not because of any inherent difficulty in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Brian > www.caldwellphotographic.com I would say that size and cost constraints would by symptoms of difficulties inherent in designing f2 zooms. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >I would say that size and cost constraints would by symptoms of difficulties >inherent in designing f2 zooms. Precisely so! ;-) Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in quantities of many millions. The design of these lenses is straightforward. You could scale any of these designs to work for 4/3 format of 35mm format, or 8x10" format, or whatever you want. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in > quantities of many millions. Examples of these used in phtography? SignatureStacey >> Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in >> quantities of many millions. > >Examples of these used in phtography? BC's expertise lies in designing cheap plastic lenses for use in CCTV security cameras ... ... you know, the ones that produce pictures where people appear as indistinct and completely unrecognisable blurry shadows. ;-) >> Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in >> quantities of many millions. > > Examples of these used in phtography? The Olympus 5050 is f/1.8 -- at the wide end. Nice little camera. A friend showed me his the other day, and I offered to trade my 8080 for it, because of the faster lens and the optical viewfinder. He declined. SignatureBen Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215 Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing. --Josh Micah Marshall > Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in > quantities of many millions. The design of these lenses is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Brian > www.caldwellphotographic.com Examples? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even > got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole > stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum > apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light > conditions. Since I can shoot at ISO 800 with my 7D and have less noise than the Oly E-1 at ISO 200 I still have a 1 stop advantage with my 28-70 and 80-200 f/2.8's. It's not massive. It's one stop. Olympus rightly took advantage of the optical packaging options to provide that much more light to the sensor. And it is massively needed given the poor noise performance of the 4/3 system to date. > If one stop is really only a minor improvement, perhaps BC could > explain why other manufacturers didn't do this years ago ... > Of course this is a truly astonishing achievement by Olympus "Astonishing"? Hardly. It's simply low hanging fruit from an optical engineering point of view. The lens system is smaller, greater apertures are available at reasonable and marketable cost. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even >> got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Cheers, >Alan. It's about time. They could also go the other direction, making lenses with conventional speeds that are much smaller than current DSLR (or should I say, SLR?)lenses. Weigh is always a consideration. You might be able to get away with not lugging the monopod around if you use long lenses. -Rich [] > It's about time. They could also go the other direction, making > lenses with conventional speeds that are much smaller than current > DSLR (or should I say, SLR?)lenses. Weigh is always a consideration. > You might be able to get away with not lugging the monopod around > if you use long lenses. > -Rich Such lenses could also be lower cost, but it seems that Olympus doesn't want to go in that (perhaps less profitable?) direction. I know it's a P&S, but being able to use an image-stablised 432mm f/3.3 lens handheld with no monopod, camera-shake or fatigue has been a major delight with my Panasonic FZ5! Noise on prints up to "10 x 8 inches" hasn't been an issue. David "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote: >Such lenses could also be lower cost, but it seems that Olympus doesn't >want to go in that (perhaps less profitable?) direction. That simply isn't true. There are *two* ranges of Zuiko lenses for the Four Thirds system, one for consumers and the other for keen photographers. The consumer lenses are very reasonably priced yet they can still offer excellent optical performance, one of the great virtues of the Four Thirds system. > It's about time. They could also go the other direction, making > lenses with conventional speeds that are much smaller than current > DSLR (or should I say, SLR?)lenses. Weigh is always a consideration. > You might be able to get away with not lugging the monopod around > if you use long lenses. Maybe. You have the same shake issues as any other camera. You could shoot wide open, but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable photos and the aperture will have to be tightened, shutter speeds lengthened ... back to the monopod... Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such > a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable > photos You don't understand DOF vs format size do you? SignatureStacey >> but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such >> a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable >> photos > >You don't understand DOF vs format size do you? He "understands" the Rule of Thirds. That's all. ;-) > He "understands" the Rule of Thirds. That's all. Funny Polson, for all the times I've mentioned that rule, it has been as a guide to decentering shots. That's all. I would think you could read _and_understand what you're reading. Too much to ask, I know. But since you're an ace at personal attacks, but a no talent photographer, I guess you go with your 'strengths' and not your photographic weaknesses. All that despite a shooting rate of 50 rolls per average *week*. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such >>a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable >>photos > > You don't understand DOF vs format size do you? You're right. I neglected the focal length choice for a given shot. I take it back, should be very good for sports. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > "Astonishing"? Hardly. It's simply low hanging fruit from an optical > engineering point of view. The lens system is smaller, greater apertures > are available at reasonable and marketable cost. What was that? "The lens system is smaller" One more time... "The lens system is smaller" Yes indeed Alan, the lens system _is_ "smaller". Rob > "The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no > other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > real difference being a single stop in speed, which does not seem to > push them off into "remote" territory. Yea that's the only difference between a 300 f2.8 and a 300 f4 lens.. LOL > If Olympus really wanted to do something truly incomparable, then why > not go for something really innovative, like a 10-100mm Yea those 10X zooms are such high quality.. SignatureStacey "Yea those 10X zooms are such high quality.." There are many things possible in the realm of optics that you may not be aware of, Stacey. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > "Yea those 10X zooms are such high quality.." > > There are many things possible in the realm of optics that you may not > be aware of, Stacey. Like this gem? "However, if you speed up the lenses only to have to use a lower ISO due to image noise problems, then you haven't gained any low-light advantage, and you may even have lost some." Yea, a 1 stop faster lens shot at 1 stop lower ISO is going to have lost some low light shooting ability... SignatureStacey I was comparing two systems, Stacey, using image quality as a metric. I don't understand your objection here. I don't think you've understood my previous post. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com Rich. I may have misjudged you. That was a terrific link. Over a month ago, I told my dealer and our local Olympus rep. that I want to be among the very first to try the 90-250 when it hits the market. For my type of photography, that lens could be a Godsend. Of course, much depends on its focusing speed. Here's hoping ... Rob >> http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses.php > > Ack, now I've got to wipe the drool out of my keyboard. Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >>>http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses.php >> >>Ack, now I've got to wipe the drool out of my keyboard. > > Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long > zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms. Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas. I'm glad Oly have taken advantage of what the size offers them, but they've painted themsleves into a noise corner at the same time with 4/3. There truly is no free lunch. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long >> zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms. > > Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas. Sour grapes Alan? Again you can't seem to grasp that the SENSOR DESIGN not the sensor size accounts for the vast majority of the present 100% crop noise, which isn't seen in final prints anyway.. SignatureStacey >>>Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long >>>zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms. >> >>Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas. > > Sour grapes Alan? No, just a reflection of the tradoffs. > Again you can't seem to grasp that the SENSOR DESIGN not the sensor size > accounts for the vast majority of the present 100% crop noise, which isn't > seen in final prints anyway.. You don't seem to grasp that this is an issue for _future_ systems in 4/3. If your current camera delivers all the performance you'll ever need, then there's no problem. As pixel densities grow, however, the noise performance will be more 'challenged' than the larger sensors. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. "Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas." Perhaps they need to develop some f/1.4 zooms? There would be some diminishing returns on that sort of aperture due to sensor falloff at extreme marginal ray angles, but it sure would impress the easily impressible. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > "Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas." > > Perhaps they need to develop some f/1.4 zooms? There would be some > diminishing returns on that sort of aperture due to sensor falloff at > extreme marginal ray angles, but it sure would impress the easily > impressible. Well, Oly do have that vignetting compensation s/w, but of course gain applied in low light areas just heightens noise there as well. f/1.4 zooms? Maybe not. But f/1.2 or f/1.0 primes possibly would be worth it to enough photographers. There are always diminishing return$ as apertures get fat. Nothing wrong with that if there are enough customers for it. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. The sensor falloff I was speaking of would apply on-axis, and is due to the marginal ray angle at f/1.4, and has nothing to do with vignetting or degree of telecentricity etc. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com >Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long >zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms. The existing pro range Zuiko Digital zoom lenses are also telecentric designs, with extremely low chromatic aberration and an effective absence of geometric distortion. Coupled with an f/2 maximum aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was previously only attainable with fixed focal length lenses. Don't forget the 50mm f/2 macro and 150mm f/2 fixed focal length Zuiko Digitals, giving the 35mm equivalent of a 100mm f/2 macro and a 300mm f/2 telephoto. "Coupled with an f/2 maximum aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was previously only attainable with fixed focal length lenses. " True only when considering the separation effect of different lenses on the 4/3 format. Using a given lens on 4/3 at f/2 will give *less* subject/background separation than you get using a lens with twice the focal length at f/2.8 on 35mm format. Brian www.caldwellphotographic.com > "Coupled with an f/2 maximum > aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > separation than you get using a lens with twice the focal length at > f/2.8 on 35mm format. Maybe you can explain this to Alan... SignatureStacey And also to Tony Polson . . . >> "Coupled with an f/2 maximum >> aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Maybe you can explain this to Alan... Only if it is very closely related to - and deviates only slightly from - the "Rule" of Thirds. ;-) > Only if it is very closely related to - and deviates only slightly > from - the "Rule" of Thirds. You are so boringly tedious. I am not a 'rule' of anything promoter. Claim what you will and waste your time. I'll have a rebuttal each time... Tony Polson said on Feb 3 2001, 1:32 pm: > One of my shots taken with this lens was on the cover > of "Paris Match" in the late 1970s. -- http://tinyurl.com/bptbc How about you post your 'Paris Match' cover and show us how a star photographer works? -- http://tinyurl.com/bptbc Or post 1/100 of a % of your best shots from the 50 rolls per average *week* that you claim as your shooting pace? Post anything that shows you have even moderate photography talent for that matter. It will improve a great deal on what has been witnessed in the past when you dared to post. You were, you are you will likely remain a coward. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.