Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pictures of new Olympus lenses

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
May 27, 2005 9:46:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no
other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film
SLR or APS/full frame DSLR systems. "

These two lenses are obviously comparable to 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8
lenses that have been available for years in 35mm format. The only
real difference being a single stop in speed, which does not seem to
push them off into "remote" territory. After all, Olympus needs that
extra stop of speed just to regain some of the selective-focus and
image noise characteristics it loses by having a smaller sensor.

If Olympus really wanted to do something truly incomparable, then why
not go for something really innovative, like a 10-100mm or 14-350mm
zoom? (or even 14-4200mm!), or a 4mm zero-distortion prime? I suggest
you attend Conference 5865 at the SPIE annual meeting in San Diego
later this summer if you want to learn more:
http://spie.org/Conferences/Programs/05/am/conferences/...

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
Related resources
May 27, 2005 2:21:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"A whole
stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum
apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light
conditions."
..

I assume you are aware that low-light performance depends on ISO value
as well as lens speed. If the 4/3 cameras maintain equal image quality
to a larger format camera at a given ISO value, then you are correct
that the one stop increase represents a real improvement. One the
other hand, if a full-frame camera has at least a one-stop ISO
advantage (due to lower image noise, for instance), then there is no
low-light advantage at all to Olympus. I would agree with with David
Taylor that there may be some size/weight advantages, but this is
certainly a different issue than low-light performance.

So lets say you are shooting an E-300 at ISO 1600 using one of these
new lenses wide open at f/2. Compare that to shooting a Canon 1DsII
with a comparable lens at f/2.8 with ISO set to 3200. Obviously, the
exposure is the same in each case, so the interesting question is
"which image looks better?". I know which one I'd bet on. If the
image quality is identical, then the low-light capability of the two
cameras using f/2 and f/2.8 lenses, respectively, is the same.
However, if the Canon image is better, then the Canon has *better* low
light capability. And if the Canon camera with f/2.8 lens can produce
an equal or better image at ISO 3200 than the Olympus with f/2 can at
ISO 800, then the Canon system will, in your words, have a *massive*
(i.e. one stop) low-light advantage over Olympus. So let the tests
begin!

f/2 zooms haven't appeared for use with 35mm still cameras because of
size/cost constraints, and not because of any inherent difficulty in
their design. They are available in 35mm cinematography, where size
and cost aren't nearly as important. In smaller formats there are
superb zooms available that are faster than f/2. However, if you speed
up the lenses only to have to use a lower ISO due to image noise
problems, then you haven't gained any low-light advantage, and you may
even have lost some.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 4:20:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses...
>
>Ack, now I've got to wipe the drool out of my keyboard.

Thanks for posting this link. Nice glass. If anyone doubted Olympus'
long term commitment to the Four Thirds system, they shouldn't now.

The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no
other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film
SLR or APS/full frame DSLR systems.

I was amused by the personal comments on the site, especially:

"All other camera manufacturers have introduced double-digit megapixel
cameras, and Olympus should be with them."

Obviously the guy's never heard of Pentax and Minolta.

;-)
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 5:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC wrote:
> "The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no
> other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film
> SLR or APS/full frame DSLR systems. "
>
> These two lenses are obviously comparable to 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8
> lenses that have been available for years in 35mm format. The only
> real difference being a single stop in speed, which does not seem to
> push them off into "remote" territory.
[]

Size and weight advantages?
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 7:05:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>BC wrote:
>> "The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no
>> other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film
>> SLR or APS/full frame DSLR systems. "
>>
>> These two lenses are obviously comparable to 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8
>> lenses that have been available for years in 35mm format. The only
>> real difference being a single stop in speed, which does not seem to
>> push them off into "remote" territory.
>[]
>
>Size and weight advantages?


I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even
got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole
stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum
apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light
conditions.

If one stop is really only a minor improvement, perhaps BC could
explain why other manufacturers didn't do this years ago ...

;-)

Of course this is a truly astonishing achievement by Olympus, and I
for one cannot wait to see how these lenses perform.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 7:05:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even
> got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole
> stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum
> apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light
> conditions.

Since other sensors give better signal/noise at 2 and 3 stops faster,
this 1 stop difference is simply not enough.

Otherwise, likely fine lenses.

>
> If one stop is really only a minor improvement, perhaps BC could
> explain why other manufacturers didn't do this years ago ...
>
> ;-)
>
> Of course this is a truly astonishing achievement by Olympus, and I
> for one cannot wait to see how these lenses perform.

At ISO 100 and 200, even 400, probably quite well.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 8:06:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even
>> got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole
>> stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum
>> apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light
>> conditions.
>
>
> Since other sensors give better signal/noise at 2 and 3 stops faster,

(2 .. 3 stops In ISO, for avoidance of doubt).

> this 1 stop difference is simply not enough.
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 11:22:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Rich. I may have misjudged you. That was a terrific link.

Over a month ago, I told my dealer and our local Olympus rep. that I want to
be among the very first to try the 90-250 when it hits the market. For my
type of photography, that lens could be a Godsend. Of course, much depends
on its focusing speed. Here's hoping ...

Rob
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 3:18:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 27 May 2005 10:21:22 -0700, "BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote:

>"A whole
>stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum
>apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light
>conditions."
>.
>
>I assume you are aware that low-light performance depends on ISO value
>as well as lens speed. If the 4/3 cameras maintain equal image quality
>to a larger format camera at a given ISO value, then you are correct
>that the one stop increase represents a real improvement. One the
>other hand, if a full-frame camera has at least a one-stop ISO
>advantage (due to lower image noise, for instance), then there is no
>low-light advantage at all to Olympus. I would agree with with David
>Taylor that there may be some size/weight advantages, but this is
>certainly a different issue than low-light performance.
>
>So lets say you are shooting an E-300 at ISO 1600 using one of these
>new lenses wide open at f/2. Compare that to shooting a Canon 1DsII
>with a comparable lens at f/2.8 with ISO set to 3200. Obviously, the
>exposure is the same in each case, so the interesting question is
>"which image looks better?". I know which one I'd bet on. If the
>image quality is identical, then the low-light capability of the two
>cameras using f/2 and f/2.8 lenses, respectively, is the same.
>However, if the Canon image is better, then the Canon has *better* low
>light capability. And if the Canon camera with f/2.8 lens can produce
>an equal or better image at ISO 3200 than the Olympus with f/2 can at
>ISO 800, then the Canon system will, in your words, have a *massive*
>(i.e. one stop) low-light advantage over Olympus. So let the tests
>begin!
>
>f/2 zooms haven't appeared for use with 35mm still cameras because of
>size/cost constraints, and not because of any inherent difficulty in
>their design. They are available in 35mm cinematography, where size
>and cost aren't nearly as important.

Neither is image quality.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:22:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
news:WPudnYjw0patKAvfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> RichA wrote:
>
>> http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses...
>
> Ack, now I've got to wipe the drool out of my keyboard.

Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long
zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:09:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even
> got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole
> stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum
> apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light
> conditions.

Since I can shoot at ISO 800 with my 7D and have less noise than the Oly
E-1 at ISO 200 I still have a 1 stop advantage with my 28-70 and 80-200
f/2.8's.

It's not massive. It's one stop. Olympus rightly took advantage of the
optical packaging options to provide that much more light to the sensor.
And it is massively needed given the poor noise performance of the 4/3
system to date.


> If one stop is really only a minor improvement, perhaps BC could
> explain why other manufacturers didn't do this years ago ...

> Of course this is a truly astonishing achievement by Olympus

"Astonishing"? Hardly. It's simply low hanging fruit from an optical
engineering point of view. The lens system is smaller, greater
apertures are available at reasonable and marketable cost.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 6:11:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

> "Brion K. Lienhart" <brionl@lienhart.name> wrote in message
> news:WPudnYjw0patKAvfRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.digitaldingus.com/previews/olympus/olylenses...
>>
>>Ack, now I've got to wipe the drool out of my keyboard.
>
>
> Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long
> zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms.

Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas. I'm glad Oly have
taken advantage of what the size offers them, but they've painted
themsleves into a noise corner at the same time with 4/3.

There truly is no free lunch.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 28, 2005 9:45:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC wrote:

> "The 14-35mm f/2 and the 35-100mm f/2 are very exciting optics, as no
> other manufacturer has made anything remotely comparable for 35mm film
> SLR or APS/full frame DSLR systems. "
>
> These two lenses are obviously comparable to 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8
> lenses that have been available for years in 35mm format. The only
> real difference being a single stop in speed, which does not seem to
> push them off into "remote" territory.

Yea that's the only difference between a 300 f2.8 and a 300 f4 lens..

LOL



>
> If Olympus really wanted to do something truly incomparable, then why
> not go for something really innovative, like a 10-100mm

Yea those 10X zooms are such high quality..

--

Stacey
May 28, 2005 9:49:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Skip M wrote:

>>
>> Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long
>> zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms.
>
> Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas.

Sour grapes Alan?

Again you can't seem to grasp that the SENSOR DESIGN not the sensor size
accounts for the vast majority of the present 100% crop noise, which isn't
seen in final prints anyway..


--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 10:15:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 28 May 2005 14:09:26 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>Tony Polson wrote:
>
>> I don't know what planet BC is on, but no-one on planet Earth has even
>> got close to a 28-70mm f/2 for 35mm film, nor a 70-200mm f/2. A whole
>> stop is a *massive* improvement over the near-universal f/2.8 maximum
>> apertures seen elsewhere, making a huge difference in low light
>> conditions.
>
>Since I can shoot at ISO 800 with my 7D and have less noise than the Oly
>E-1 at ISO 200 I still have a 1 stop advantage with my 28-70 and 80-200
>f/2.8's.
>
>It's not massive. It's one stop. Olympus rightly took advantage of the
>optical packaging options to provide that much more light to the sensor.
> And it is massively needed given the poor noise performance of the 4/3
>system to date.
>
>
>> If one stop is really only a minor improvement, perhaps BC could
>> explain why other manufacturers didn't do this years ago ...
>
>> Of course this is a truly astonishing achievement by Olympus
>
>"Astonishing"? Hardly. It's simply low hanging fruit from an optical
>engineering point of view. The lens system is smaller, greater
>apertures are available at reasonable and marketable cost.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan.

It's about time. They could also go the other direction, making
lenses with conventional speeds that are much smaller than current
DSLR (or should I say, SLR?)lenses. Weigh is always a consideration.
You might be able to get away with not lugging the monopod around
if you use long lenses.
-Rich
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 3:17:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" wrote ...

> "Astonishing"? Hardly. It's simply low hanging fruit from an optical
> engineering point of view. The lens system is smaller, greater apertures
> are available at reasonable and marketable cost.

What was that? "The lens system is smaller"

One more time... "The lens system is smaller"

Yes indeed Alan, the lens system _is_ "smaller".

Rob
May 29, 2005 9:11:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Yea those 10X zooms are such high quality.."

There are many things possible in the realm of optics that you may not
be aware of, Stacey.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
May 29, 2005 9:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas."

Perhaps they need to develop some f/1.4 zooms? There would be some
diminishing returns on that sort of aperture due to sensor falloff at
extreme marginal ray angles, but it sure would impress the easily
impressible.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 11:58:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
[]
> It's about time. They could also go the other direction, making
> lenses with conventional speeds that are much smaller than current
> DSLR (or should I say, SLR?)lenses. Weigh is always a consideration.
> You might be able to get away with not lugging the monopod around
> if you use long lenses.
> -Rich

Such lenses could also be lower cost, but it seems that Olympus doesn't
want to go in that (perhaps less profitable?) direction.

I know it's a P&S, but being able to use an image-stablised 432mm f/3.3
lens handheld with no monopod, camera-shake or fatigue has been a major
delight with my Panasonic FZ5! Noise on prints up to "10 x 8 inches"
hasn't been an issue.

David
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 12:28:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117214482.732732.69510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> f/2 zooms haven't appeared for use with 35mm still cameras because of
> size/cost constraints, and not because of any inherent difficulty in
> their design. They are available in 35mm cinematography, where size
> and cost aren't nearly as important. In smaller formats there are
> superb zooms available that are faster than f/2. However, if you speed
> up the lenses only to have to use a lower ISO due to image noise
> problems, then you haven't gained any low-light advantage, and you may
> even have lost some.
>
> Brian
> www.caldwellphotographic.com
>

I would say that size and cost constraints would by symptoms of difficulties
inherent in designing f2 zooms.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 1:54:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Skip M wrote:
>
>
>>>Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long
>>>zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms.
>>
>>Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas.
>
>
> Sour grapes Alan?

No, just a reflection of the tradoffs.

>
> Again you can't seem to grasp that the SENSOR DESIGN not the sensor size
> accounts for the vast majority of the present 100% crop noise, which isn't
> seen in final prints anyway..

You don't seem to grasp that this is an issue for _future_ systems in
4/3. If your current camera delivers all the performance you'll ever
need, then there's no problem.

As pixel densities grow, however, the noise performance will be more
'challenged' than the larger sensors.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 2:24:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> It's about time. They could also go the other direction, making
> lenses with conventional speeds that are much smaller than current
> DSLR (or should I say, SLR?)lenses. Weigh is always a consideration.
> You might be able to get away with not lugging the monopod around
> if you use long lenses.

Maybe. You have the same shake issues as any other camera. You could
shoot wide open, but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such
a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable
photos and the aperture will have to be tightened, shutter speeds
lengthened ... back to the monopod...

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 4:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC wrote:

> "Doesn't make up for the poor noise performance alas."
>
> Perhaps they need to develop some f/1.4 zooms? There would be some
> diminishing returns on that sort of aperture due to sensor falloff at
> extreme marginal ray angles, but it sure would impress the easily
> impressible.

Well, Oly do have that vignetting compensation s/w, but of course gain
applied in low light areas just heightens noise there as well.

f/1.4 zooms? Maybe not. But f/1.2 or f/1.0 primes possibly would be
worth it to enough photographers.

There are always diminishing return$ as apertures get fat. Nothing
wrong with that if there are enough customers for it.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
May 29, 2005 10:13:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC wrote:

> "Yea those 10X zooms are such high quality.."
>
> There are many things possible in the realm of optics that you may not
> be aware of, Stacey.

Like this gem?

"However, if you speed
up the lenses only to have to use a lower ISO due to image noise
problems, then you haven't gained any low-light advantage, and you may
even have lost some."


Yea, a 1 stop faster lens shot at 1 stop lower ISO is going to have lost
some low light shooting ability...


--

Stacey
May 29, 2005 10:15:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such
> a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable
> photos

You don't understand DOF vs format size do you?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 10:55:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:

>Such lenses could also be lower cost, but it seems that Olympus doesn't
>want to go in that (perhaps less profitable?) direction.


That simply isn't true. There are *two* ranges of Zuiko lenses for
the Four Thirds system, one for consumers and the other for keen
photographers. The consumer lenses are very reasonably priced yet
they can still offer excellent optical performance, one of the great
virtues of the Four Thirds system.
May 29, 2005 11:55:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I was comparing two systems, Stacey, using image quality as a metric.
I don't understand your objection here.

I don't think you've understood my previous post.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
May 29, 2005 11:58:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The sensor falloff I was speaking of would apply on-axis, and is due to
the marginal ray angle at f/1.4, and has nothing to do with vignetting
or degree of telecentricity etc.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
May 30, 2005 12:16:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Coupled with an f/2 maximum
aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was
previously only attainable with fixed focal length lenses. "

True only when considering the separation effect of different lenses on
the 4/3 format.

Using a given lens on 4/3 at f/2 will give *less* subject/background
separation than you get using a lens with twice the focal length at
f/2.8 on 35mm format.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
May 30, 2005 12:24:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in
quantities of many millions. The design of these lenses is
straightforward. You could scale any of these designs to work for 4/3
format of 35mm format, or 8x10" format, or whatever you want.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:49:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"BC" <brianc1959@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117423480.673370.54620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in
> quantities of many millions. The design of these lenses is
> straightforward. You could scale any of these designs to work for 4/3
> format of 35mm format, or 8x10" format, or whatever you want.
>
> Brian
> www.caldwellphotographic.com
>

Examples?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
May 30, 2005 3:46:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC wrote:

> Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in
> quantities of many millions.

Examples of these used in phtography?

--

Stacey
May 30, 2005 3:48:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

BC wrote:

> "Coupled with an f/2 maximum
> aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was
> previously only attainable with fixed focal length lenses. "
>
> True only when considering the separation effect of different lenses on
> the 4/3 format.
>
> Using a given lens on 4/3 at f/2 will give *less* subject/background
> separation than you get using a lens with twice the focal length at
> f/2.8 on 35mm format.
>
>

Maybe you can explain this to Alan...

--

Stacey
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 4:00:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Here, we're starting to see the advantage of 4/3, apparently. F2.8 long
>zooms, and f2 medium zooms, faster than any other mfr's zooms.


The existing pro range Zuiko Digital zoom lenses are also telecentric
designs, with extremely low chromatic aberration and an effective
absence of geometric distortion. Coupled with an f/2 maximum
aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was
previously only attainable with fixed focal length lenses.

Don't forget the 50mm f/2 macro and 150mm f/2 fixed focal length Zuiko
Digitals, giving the 35mm equivalent of a 100mm f/2 macro and a 300mm
f/2 telephoto.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 5:50:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such
>> a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable
>> photos
>
>You don't understand DOF vs format size do you?


He "understands" the Rule of Thirds. That's all.

;-)
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 5:51:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>I would say that size and cost constraints would by symptoms of difficulties
>inherent in designing f2 zooms.


Precisely so!

;-)
May 30, 2005 11:23:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

And also to Tony Polson . . .
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 12:20:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
>> but for sports the fastest apertures will deliver such
>>a shallow DOF as to make it difficult to impossible to get publishable
>>photos
>
>
> You don't understand DOF vs format size do you?

You're right. I neglected the focal length choice for a given shot.

I take it back, should be very good for sports.

Cheers,
Alan.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:40:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

>
> He "understands" the Rule of Thirds. That's all.


Funny Polson, for all the times I've mentioned that rule, it has been as
a guide to decentering shots. That's all. I would think you could read
_and_understand what you're reading. Too much to ask, I know.

But since you're an ace at personal attacks, but a no talent
photographer, I guess you go with your 'strengths' and not your
photographic weaknesses. All that despite a shooting rate of 50 rolls
per average *week*.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 2:49:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>BC wrote:
>
>> Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in
>> quantities of many millions.
>
>Examples of these used in phtography?


BC's expertise lies in designing cheap plastic lenses for use in CCTV
security cameras ...

.... you know, the ones that produce pictures where people appear as
indistinct and completely unrecognisable blurry shadows.

;-)
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 2:49:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>BC wrote:
>
>> "Coupled with an f/2 maximum
>> aperture, they will allow subject/background separation that was
>> previously only attainable with fixed focal length lenses. "
>>
>> True only when considering the separation effect of different lenses on
>> the 4/3 format.
>>
>> Using a given lens on 4/3 at f/2 will give *less* subject/background
>> separation than you get using a lens with twice the focal length at
>> f/2.8 on 35mm format.
>>
>>
>
>Maybe you can explain this to Alan...


Only if it is very closely related to - and deviates only slightly
from - the "Rule" of Thirds.

;-)
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 2:49:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> Only if it is very closely related to - and deviates only slightly
> from - the "Rule" of Thirds.

You are so boringly tedious. I am not a 'rule' of anything promoter.
Claim what you will and waste your time. I'll have a rebuttal each time...

Tony Polson said on Feb 3 2001, 1:32 pm:

> One of my shots taken with this lens was on the cover
> of "Paris Match" in the late 1970s.

-- http://tinyurl.com/bptbc

How about you post your 'Paris Match' cover and show us how a star
photographer works? -- http://tinyurl.com/bptbc

Or post 1/100 of a % of your best shots from the 50 rolls per average
*week* that you claim as your shooting pace?

Post anything that shows you have even moderate photography talent for
that matter. It will improve a great deal on what has been witnessed in
the past when you dared to post.

You were, you are you will likely remain a coward.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 6:53:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 23:46:33 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BC wrote:
>
>> Zoom lenses faster than f/2 have been manufactured for many years in
>> quantities of many millions.
>
> Examples of these used in phtography?

The Olympus 5050 is f/1.8 -- at the wide end.

Nice little camera. A friend showed me his the other day, and I
offered to trade my 8080 for it, because of the faster lens and the
optical viewfinder. He declined.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
!