Yes, the different between 1:40 and infinity can be large enough for the XA
to show "moderate pincushion" in Gary's test and "none" in my test (at
infinity). Also large enough for the 18/3.5 to show "none" in Gary's test
and slight pincushion in my test.
My test was not really at infinity, I shot the 30 stories building which was
close to my flat. But now I moved to a new flat, can't perform the same test
anymore.
I remember some people has posted a Zuiko 35-80 at infinity, the sea level
is curved, which looked more serious than the brick wall shot you posted.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Olaf Greve" <olaf_greve@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> [C.H.Ling]
>
> >Testing at 5m is not enough, at least you should test it at infinity
> >too. Pop photo also test lenses at closest distance, in most case the
> >distortion is much higher.
>
> Hmmm, the closest distance test should be possible, but the infinity one
> might be a bit more complicated, i.e. it may be a bit difficult to find
> something like a brick wall that's big enough to fill the full frame when
> using the lens @35mm at the infinity setting...
>
> Do these two settings really influence the distortion heavily? If so, our
> tests may be void again. Oh well, as mentioned previously, for me the most
> interesting part of these tests is to have an indication of how badly the
> distortion shows; I guess I'll be satisfied with a less-than-perfect
> test...:/
>
< 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 >
|