Mark Dapoz wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>> Now that I have a competent dSLR (E-500), two lenses, and a flash, I've
>> started looking for other lenses. I love wide angles, so I looked at the
>> Olympus 7-14mm lens for this camera.
>>
>> Do you want to know what it costs? Do you really want to know? It's $1640.
>>
>> No, that leading 1 isn't a typo. It really costs that much.
>>
>> Olympus claims this lens has the world's first molded-aspheric element using
>> ED glass. That's great. But it's a lens for a
>> not-really-professional-but-wanting-to-look-like-one camera, whose sensor is
>> 1/4 the area of a frame of 35mm film. Shouldn't it cost a lot _less_ than a
>> comparable 35mm lens?
>>
>> I checked Adorama's listing for Canon digital-specific lenses for their
>> APS-C sensor cameras. The comparable lens, a 10-22mm zoom, is $690. Not
>> $1690 -- $690. The closest 35mm lens is the Canon 16-35mm, for $1400.
>>
You've got the wrong word in there, "comparable". Leaving aside all
other construction and optical qualities, the focal lengths aren't
comparable. Using the horizontal angle covered, rather than the useless
diagonal FOV used in specs, and adjusting to 35mm FL equivalents for the
FOVs, the ZD is 14.5-29 mm and the Canyon is 16-35 mm. 1.5 mm doesn't
sound like much, but it is a significant % difference down in this range
and makes a big difference in angle covered and in design/manufacturing
costs.
Oly doesn't have a lens comparable to the Canyon and vice versa. Your
complaint should be that Oly doesn't (yet?) have a really wide prosumer
zoom.
>
> The 7-14mm is a pro-grade lens and clearly isn't targeted to the E-500
> market. You really have to use this lens to appreciate both its image
> qualities and build quality. Olympus went all out with this lens and it
> really shows. The Canon 10-22mm isn't in the same league,
I have no dog in this fight, as I am not in the market for either one -
neither will work on the 5D. However, I'm curious whence comes your
information about this. I'll concede whatever you want about
construction quality, sealing, etc. I'd be interested to know if there
are comparable tests of the two to show differences in optical quality
Further, I place linear distortion in a lower category than other
optical parameters, as it is so easily corrected these days.
> ...Olympus is clearly missing a consumer grade
> ultra-wide lens in the lens line up. Maybe eventually they'll come up
> with something to address that but for now the 11-22mm is the closest
> you'll get.
>
I'm curious how many people - other than the serious WA folks who would
buy the 7-14 in preference to a cheaper $ & quality 9-20 anyway - really
use something wider than the 21 mm on their film cameras more than once
in a blue moon. 24-40 or so was a pretty common idea of a super WA zoom
in MF film days. That's probably how Oly chose the range for their
standard WA zoom and then added some range on the low end. Oly seems to
hark back to film camera thinking more than some others.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|