Hi,
As a response to the shell shock caused by the 35-80/2.8 barrel distortion
picture there were some interesting reactions, so I'll treat them here
briefly:
[Frank van Lindert]
AFAIK all 35-70 zooms share the phenomeneon of barrel distorion on the
short end with the 35-80, the 35-70/3.6 having slighly less distortion than
the others in wide position (my personal opinion). Isn't this more or less
usual, being a necessary compromise when designing a wide-to-short-tele
zoom lens around the 50mm central position?
I wonder how much distortion the other zooms show on the 35mm end. I can
perform a test against the 35-70/3.6 which I also have, maybe someone else
(Gary!) has a more readily available answer as to which one(s) distort most,
and if there's a lot between each of these lenses.
But I think that he picture Olav made shows a bit of wavelike
distortion too (especially visible on 'ground-level'. I have never
noticed it with my instance of the 35-80. And although I didn't investigate
this scientifically or in depth, I also suspect the distortion of Olav's
lens to be more pronounced than that of mine...
How do other 35-80 lenses compare?
Well, there you go! I had never "noticed" it in my pictures either: you need
to deliberately test for it in order to really notice it. As far as I've
understood from Erwin, the barrel distortion is something inherent to the
design of this lens, and consequently it should be the same for all Zuiko
35-80/2.8s. Nonetheless, feel free to test it and share the results with the
group...
[Joel Wilcox]
The foundation line at the bottom is probably the more damning. It doesn't
look like you're completely square to the wall, unless one wants to argue
that the lens distorts more on the right side than the left.
Indeed I did not properly put the camera + lens on a tripod to make sure the
lens was absolutely parallel to the wall, instead, the picture was taken
handheld, in which I tried to get it as parallel as possible to the wall.
Actually, I pretty much took this picture as a proof of concept, to see if
distortion would indeed be visibly noticeable. Now that I know it is, I may
do a more proper comparison, putting the camera on a tripod and comparing it
against the 35-70/3.6 and the 35/2.8 Shift.
In other words, you won't get an argument from me that there is no
distortion, but this seems to exaggerate the effect a little bit.
Perhaps the effect is indeed exaggerated a little (not sure). I'll probably
try to do a better test with a leveled tripod.
Do masons in Holland drink during lunch? Maybe you need to find a wall
that was put up in the morning. <G>
Hehehe, you never know...;) Then again, perhaps the lens "looked a bit too
deep into the glass"...
I don't enjoy your photo,
Neither do I...:(
though if I could only take one lens, this is still unquestionably the lens
I'd take. On my deserted island, there are fortunately no brick walls. ;-)
Indeed. I'm not worried by the distortion, and still the 35-80/2.8 is the
lens I use for about 600f my pictures (with the other 400retty much all
being taken with the 100/2). As far as I'm concerned, I'll only deliberately
take this distortion into account for critical pictures. For these pictures
I may then decide to use the 35/2.8 Shift (if that one doesn't distort this
heavily)...
[Gary Reese]
Thanks Olaf for illustrating what my finding of: Distortion = pronounced
barrel looks like. George Anderson's previous example of a curved ocean
horizon in Hawaii wasn't considered obvious by some.
You're welcome. Of course many 35-80/2.8 owners (myself included) will not
like to see that this precious lens really does have distortion, but I
cannot deny that it does, so it is better to take it into account when
shooting critical work...
Unfortunately there are no 35-70(80)mm Zuikos which handle the 35mm
focal length well in the distortion department.
Do you have a shortened overview (coming from your extensive test page) of
which ones are best/worst?
[Larry]
Of course there's the 28-90mm f/2.8 Viv Series One for MUCH MUCH LESS
money, and is a sharp lens with less barrel distortion on the wide end...
(really, the 35-80 f2.8 zuiko is waaay too highly priced for its benefits).
Apples and oranges... I think to do a full comparison one would have to
compare each and every aspect then of these two lenses. An issue is that the
focal ranges are not the same, and especially on the wide end this may be a
problem.
Regarding the prices of these two lenses: it's simply the typical scenario
of Zuiko vs. third party, but as in this case it concerns high speed zoom
lenses, the numbers are a bit bigger than when comparing many of the other
Zuiko's with their 3rd party counterparts. I too would have liked this lens
to be a lot cheaper, but then, I do use it for some 600f my pictures, so I
do think it makes sense to "invest" in a lens that one uses really often,
just my opinion though... :/
Finally: I have never used the Vivitar lens you mention, but I do believe
you when you say it is a very good one too. Erwin also mentioned that the
Tokina 35-70/2.8 he has is an excellent lens. 3rd party lenses can be very
good too, and at times they may even be better than Zuikos, nonetheless I am
in no way dissatisfied with the 35-80/2.8. I am curious though, however, as
to how much distortion the other zooms (more or less in the same range) give
on the wide end...
Cheers!
Olafo
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|