Nevertheless, my point was about inexpensive plastic lenses in general.
I'm not advocating buying that particular one or arguing whether it will
be a good long term investment, or whether Canon was wise or not. I was
talking about perception vs. reality about the optical performance of
this type of lens design in general. (I could argue that if a lens so
obviously not suited for digital in theory can perform rather well, one
that is so designed should be even better, but choose not to.) The
Sigmas that started this thread and are its subject are specifically
designed for APS size and smaller digital sensors.
Moose
wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>I don't know about the quality of the image although there are mixed
>reviews even on the Canon forum at dpreview. My criticism is that it is
>a poor effort by Canon. Olympus says that you need to optimize lens
>design for digital. So does Leica. Nikon has redesigned wide angle
>lenses for wide angle where optimization is critical. Canon took an old
>lens design that had a short, not a long, back focus with a rear
>element that protrudes into the mirror box. Rather than do a fresh lens
>design they redesigned the mirror motion of the 300D so it would not
>hit the lens and put a special mount on the lens so that it cannot be
>put on any other Canon camera. Given that the average model life of a
>Canon digital camera is less than two years you may end up with a lens
>that fits on nothing.
>
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|