Jan, I think you should return your 3x.
I recognize the phenomenen you describe, but only from trying to do
some tele work with a very cheap video teleconverter... My 3x does
perform as it should - without noticeable c.a.
Even with the B-300 attached the c.a. is hardly visible (but it is
definitely there in the corners).
I am not saying that the 3x is on par with the 350/2.8, but I consider
it good value for money.
(I should add that I have paid no more than $1000 for E-20 plus 3x TC,
having both bought as BINs on e*ay....)
Frank.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:22:53 -0800, Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>>From: Frank van Lindert <Frank.van@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>My E-20 and 3x screw-on teleconverter, resulting in a digital camera
>>with 420/2.8 equivalent, are much cheaper together than the Zuiko
>>350/2.8 has ever been, and smaller, and lighter.
>
>But the quality and resolution is nowhere near the same!
>
>>A 49->55mm step-up ring and 1.7x B-300 on front of this combo will
>>give you a quality 700/3.5 equivalent.
>
>I'm not sure about "quality." Perhaps I have a bad sample, but I'm a bit
>underwhelmed with my 3x. When you look at actual pixels, there is huge
>chromatic aberration that gets worse the further from center you get. High
>contrast shapes in the corners look like they're wearing a rainbow halo!
>
>It's a fun lens, but nowhere near the performance of even a cheap, third-party
>OM-mount lens of similar length.
< 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 >
|