Olympus's 35-100mm f2, sharper than primes?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Rich - 19 Mar 2006 07:08 GMT

Response Photo, the French mag. tested this $4000+ lens as well as
Pentax's highly regarded 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. The Olympus scored
higher than the Pentax (no, they weren't against each other) but it
would seem to indicate the Olympus zoom is pretty awesome.
I don't recall seeing recently any lens test as high as it did.

Reply to this Message

Paul Furman - 19 Mar 2006 19:43 GMT

> Response Photo, the French mag. tested this $4000+ lens as well as
> Pentax's highly regarded 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. The Olympus scored
> higher than the Pentax (no, they weren't against each other) but it
> would seem to indicate the Olympus zoom is pretty awesome.
> I don't recall seeing recently any lens test as high as it did.

I would expect a $4000 lens to perform better than a $300 lens.

Reply to this Message

Rich - 20 Mar 2006 06:40 GMT

>> Response Photo, the French mag. tested this $4000+ lens as well as
>> Pentax's highly regarded 40mm f2.8 pancake lens. The Olympus scored
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I would expect a $4000 lens to perform better than a $300 lens.

Actually, the Olympus goes for around $2100 in the U.S., the Pentax
(I think) is around $500.00, but it apparently has tighter tolerances
than other Pentax lenses.
-Rich

Reply to this Message

tomm42 - 20 Mar 2006 19:25 GMT

A better test would have been up against the 80-200 (approx) Canon or
Nikon, or the 135 f2 (which rates about as close to perfect as any
lens) Nikon, or the 85 f1.8 Nikon. That said Olympus seems to have made
some nice lenses. But $2100 for a lens of that range seems excessive.

Tom

Reply to this Message

Rich - 21 Mar 2006 03:01 GMT

>A better test would have been up against the 80-200 (approx) Canon or
>Nikon, or the 135 f2 (which rates about as close to perfect as any
>lens) Nikon, or the 85 f1.8 Nikon. That said Olympus seems to have made
>some nice lenses. But $2100 for a lens of that range seems excessive.
>
>Tom

Someone suggested that they are likely to sell few compared to Canon
and Nikon so their lenses (when produced to that level of quality)
cost more. For eg. Their 300mm f2.8 is around $6000.

Reply to this Message

D-Mac - 21 Mar 2006 04:49 GMT

>>> A better test would have been up against the 80-200 (approx) Canon
>>> or Nikon, or the 135 f2 (which rates about as close to perfect as
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> and Nikon so their lenses (when produced to that level of quality)
>> cost more. For eg. Their 300mm f2.8 is around $6000.

Along with my Canon DSLRs I have some E series Olympus cameras originally
bought for continuous event shooting. I have a great admiration for Olympus
as a lens maker but less for their choice of sensor suppliers. Anyway... x2
crop factor is appropriate. The 35 -100 is actually a 70 - 200 image area
lens. This produces no vignetting, something the Canon 70 -200 does when
fitted to a 5D or the original film bodies it was designed for.

The 300 f/2.8 is comparable in image area to a 600 mm lens and priced
favourably when compared to Canon's 600 f/2.8. I think the cost of $2100 for
a lens with the crop area of 70 - 200 and producing prime quality results
with f/2.8 iris, competes favourably with a Canon 70 - 200 which is less
than ideal for all Canon's DSLRs priced at $1900.

Considering Olympus made the right decision in producing lenses of
comparable image area to popular ones in the market place and were not
hampered by backwards compatibility like Canon are, the offerings from
Olympus only need to gain a sensor nearly equal to other makers to gain a
huge share of the market. The Panasonic sensor in the E330 is a step in the
right direction.

Signature

www.photosbydouglas.com
www.weprint2canvas.com
If you really must write,use my
name at an above domain.

Reply to this Message

Paul Murray - 21 Mar 2006 10:50 GMT

> as a lens maker but less for their choice of sensor suppliers. Anyway... x2
> crop factor is appropriate. The 35 -100 is actually a 70 - 200 image area
> lens. This produces no vignetting, something the Canon 70 -200 does when
> fitted to a 5D or the original film bodies it was designed for.

Is that actually tested?
Other Olympus 4/3rds lenses (such as the 55-200) actually have quite
significant vignetting, per the photozone tests.

Reply to this Message

Skip M - 22 Mar 2006 06:38 GMT

>> as a lens maker but less for their choice of sensor suppliers. Anyway...
>> x2
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Other Olympus 4/3rds lenses (such as the 55-200) actually have quite
> significant vignetting, per the photozone tests.

The Oly 35-100 is actually a little larger than the Canon 70-200, and uses
the same size filter, so I'd be surprised if it produced any significant
vignetting. After all, it's cropping out a smaller chunk of the image
circle than the Canon 20D does out of the equivalent lens. And the 70-200
produces little discernable light fall off on the 5D, as it is.

Signature

Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Reply to this Message