First of all, I'm surprised nobody caught onto my cynicism and sarcasm. Too
subtle, I guess.
Old Think vs. New Think. Did anybody actually believe that crock? This,
coming from a devout drinker of the OM Kool-Aide? Sorry, I guess I've been
too serious lately.
I agree with Dawid that CA is unforgivable in a "premium" lens. Yes, the
17/2.8 is a premium lens based on pricing for this class of product.
However, some issues are unavoidable and the "new think" of in-camera
processing is necessary to counter some of the color-artifact issues which
have been cropping up in the digital world. It's the nature of the beast and
is necessary to make sensors respond in a more "film-like" manner.
The only explanation to the CA issue seen on the 17mm samples is
manufacturing variances. Any and All cameras in people's hands are strictly
manufacturing test preruns or hand-builds. I have a very hard time believing
that Olympus optical engineers would have designed a lens that bad on
purpose. As a general rule, Olympus' dog lenses are as good as most
companies' better lenses.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|