On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 12:26:49PM +0200, Peter Stvcklein wrote:
> > I understand. I own both. The 2/35 is a bad design (look at the front
> > element). Dark edges even at an aperture of 5.6.
> I can`t disagree more. Although my trusty 35/2 now has strong compettition
> im my kit it is a never to sale lens, because of it`s performance.
> To jude the performance of a wideangel-lens by comapiring the
> vingetting with a tele in not fair.
I own a comparable lens the 1,8/28 Sigma lens, not the newest version. Also
some other MF, LF and 35mm wide angle gear, e.g. 2.8/20-35mm Tokina, 2.8/28
Canon, 2.8/24mm Olympus (Super Angulon 5.6/65, Mamiya 4.5/43). All the 35mm
wide angle lenses have at aperture 2.8 significantly lesser vignetting than
the 2.0/35 Olympus.
I didnt compare tele design with modest wide angle design. I like Olympus
for their Macro equipment (4.5/135, 4.0/80).
> The natural (=mostly unavoidable) vingetting of a 35mm lens is
> 0.9 f-stop (cos^4-rule). While a 85 mm lens has only 0.2 F-stop
> natural vingetting (=none).
> CoFo meassured the vingetting of the 35mm Zuiko, and it matches
> the natural vingetting at F5.6.
You know of the german 'nickname' CloFo and its meaning?
> I´ve seen no 35-mm lens with noticeably less vingetting stopped
> down. The curved front element is pretty positive in respect to
Not at open aperture!
Theoretical a strong curved front of the lens causes higher reflection at
average as a plane front element at the edges.
My rule of thumb was, i can use my 2.8/24 at full aperture with compromises,
but i have to stop down for two or more with the 2/35 lens. Even with b&w
films i avoided available light shooting with my 2/35.
> Don`t be so hard with a wide angel lens, and enjoy it`s other
looking for an achromat (1.2-2.5x) for the 4.0/80mm lens.
< 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 >