Hi Dawid, Ed and all,
It's been a really long time since my last reply to this thread – so
many things to do, so little time! Anyway, i'd like to add another
couple of euro-cents :-)
From: Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>>Carlos, I enjoyed your long
and belated reply to my thread. Some>comments inline below:
Thanks! This was a really nice discussion.
>On 08 Jun 2010, at 12:43 PM, Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:>>> (the diameter
>ratio between the exit and entrance>> pupils)>> could be an indicator of "how
>much" retrofocus is a certain lens.>>I've never though about it that way, but
>it makes a lot of sense.>Wow, then the 21/2 is *very* retrofocus, the rear
>exit pupil is>very large compared to the front one.
But don't take my word for it... I'm no optical expert, and photo
lenses are really complex devices for following simple rules. Anyway,
having a focal length less than half the register (46mm) it _has_ to
be a strong retrofocus.
>The Mamiya 7 super wide-angle optics are actually pleasantly small,
>I>find:>58mm filter size, comparable to small-ish 35mm SLR lenses. Unlike
>the>huge>and heavy RB7 lenses I use, they are monsters.
They're indeed. I had a RB67, but sold it because I was ver unwilling
to use it due to size :-( Now my "system" 6x6 camera is a Pentacon Six
-- not exactly small, but at least sort-of handholdable even with one
hand!
[Mmmm... a medium format rangefinder... that sounds good :-)]
>>> but the genius of the Maitani team really is apparent when looking at>>>
>>> the remarkable 21/2.0.>>>> It _IS_ remarkable, nobody doubts it ;-)>>I feel
>>> the same way, one of the very special lenses that the OM system>has
>>> delivered. Everybody who owns one is very very lucky...
Yeah... ;-) I'm thinking about another great use for it: as a standard
lens for _video_ capture with thr GF1. Within the cropped 4/3 sensor,
the original pancake 20/1.7 is as every bit as good, if not better...
but AF performance fo the GF1 _while shooting video_ is simply awful,
and the focus-by-wire doesn't help here.
>The C/Y Distagon is indeed a monster lens. Alas, it's the best of>the best for
>21mm SLR lenses as I understand.
It is indeed, in terms of MTF curves -- read sharpness and contrast,
and probably resolution. Distortion, however, is far from perfect, as
aalready pointed out, but that's rarely an issue to me. YMMV.
>But the Zuiko 21/2.0>can probably claim title of "second best" SLR 21, and
>it's so much>faster and smaller.
I think it's still a good trade off, a bit more "down to Earth"
performance in a much more useful/convenient package.
>You're right, of course the OM mirror box is much deeper than the rest>of the
>body. It's well-disguised in the design,
Another great design detail is the shutter speed ring around the
mount, which adds some of the required depth while making the body
_look_ shallower ;-)
>but it does make the package>much deeper with almost any lens fitted.
There's no other way on a SLR... The micro-4/3 to OM adapter is nearly
as deep as most Zuikos :-(
>I have never used a R4* but I can imagine the 21mm finder to be>lovely.
>Can>one still accurately focus fast wide lenses, like the 35/1.2, you>think ?
Haven't tried... That's what the R3* are for! Anyway, my RF wides
aren't such speed-kings, and the faster (and longer) lenses could be
used on the R3A:
12/5.6 (*)15/4.5 (*)21/428/1.935/1.740/1.4
*) non-RF coupled, but never a problem to focus.
Update: last night I developed (C41) a roll shot with the R4M,
including pics taken with the 50/1.1 – theoretically ill-fitted to the
body. Everything came out fine, so I don't think it has a problem
focusing extra-fast lenses, at least to my eyes.
>Sure. My point was really that, this is a manner of working that
>many>rangefinder>users tout as being the exclusive domain of those cameras.
>What gives>the OM>the edge, in my opinion, is that it's possibly easier to set
>shutter>speed>by "feel alone" with the OM's bayonet shutter speed ring
The OM is not alone about having the shutter speed ring around the
lens mount – I remember some Nikkormats, and also several
non-interchangeable lens rangefinders from the 60's and 70's.
BTW, the point of most (if not all) of my discussion here is... that I
believe the OM System to be a 'bad choice' when comparing SLR to RF
cameras, because the OM is, IMHO, the most RangeFinder-like of the SLR
systems! Maitani was indeed a Leica user
From: "Sawyer, Edward" <Ed.Sawyer@xxxxxxx>
>Actually the 21/2 is a lot less retrofocus than some SLR lenses. The Distagon
>and Minolta>21/2.8 come to mind. Huge front elements, smaller rear elements
>than the Oly 21/2.
In retrofocus (and some 'standard') lenses, the rear element diameter
is strongly related to the aperture; thus, those lenses being slower
should have smaller rear elements. But yes, the comparatively small
front element is the great achievement of this equally great Zuiko. As
Oly claimed in a brochure, a shorter lens implies a smaller (diameter)
front element.
>The Mamiya 7 wides are really in a class of their own. They basically match
>the specs of the >21/2 in terms of resolution (and better it in contrast), for
>a neg that is about 5x bigger(!).
Drooling... ;-)
>A near-symmetrical biogon-style design has some advantages that are simply
>>insurmountable in any SLR retrofocus lens I've seen.
Yes, that's (of the) great thing(s) of rangefinder systems...
>It's definitely one of their masterworks. But they have many. I'd put the
>18/3.5 on par >basically with the 21/2 in many ways (size, sharpness).
The OM 18/3.5 is said to be one of the sharpest lenses in its class.
Size? After fitting the 'mandatory' 72 mm filter adapter, it's less
comparable, although still quite smaller than other makes. But the 18
is almost two stops slower, whereas the FoV is nearly the same (100
vs. 92 degrees), so the 18 is 'less stellar' to me – but no slouch,
either.
>Other gems that have nearly no >peers (at least at the time they were made):
>90/2, the f/2 macros (20, 38), 24 shift.
Well, the 90/2 was a relatively recent addition to the OM system... I
tried one, and it's indeed a superb performer (at least at 'standard'
distances), way better than any of the excellent 85/2, but an
ergonomic nightmare :-( However, the (possibly older) Minolta MD 85/2
is almost as compact as the Zuiko 85, but near Zuiko 90 performance
(!)
The f/2 (bellows) macros and the 24 Shift have no pair either, but
they're a bit too specialized to me... However, a 'reasonable'
super-wide (21 mm in my book) is likely to be used indoors, where that
(very useable!) f/2 speed is a Godsend – and again, no other maker has
done such a lens. Oh, yes, there's a Sigma (a.k.a. Significant
Malfunction :-) 20/1.8, but this is a huge (82 mm filters) lens of
rather poor performance –- here are some highlights from a review at
<http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-20mm-f-1.8-EX-DG-Lens-Review.aspx>:
-*unusable at f/1.8* -miserable performance outside the
center-*significantly curved plane of sharp focus**-strongest
vignetting I've seen - 5 stops**-very flare-prone*
In other words, quite unremarkable against 'our' Zuiko 21/2 ;-)
>> The C/Y Distagon is indeed a monster lens. Alas, it's the best of>> the best
>> for 21mm SLR lenses as I understand.>>Well... define 'best'. It's got
>> complex mustache distortion, is huge, and expensive. The Oly >21/2 betters
>> it in all 3 of those respects, and is a stop faster.
It's always relative... As mentioned earlier, the Zuiko is sharp and
contrasty, but not as unsanely as the Distagon. Zeiss lenses are
expensive anyway.
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|