« Ernie | Main | Happy Thanksgiving »

Thursday, 22 November 2007


To follow up on Mike's comment regarding the Olympus kit lenses (and on a discussion from a few weeks back on Olympus primes), slrgear.com has just posted reviews of several Olympus lenses that are simply astounding. In particular, see the reviews of the 35mm f/3.5 macro and the 50mm f/2.0 macro. Sharp at ANY aperture, including wide open, with almost no shading, CA or distortion. These lenses are a steal at these prices. The only drawback seems to be focusing speed and the build quality of the 35mm lens (but note that manual focus damping is apparently excellent on both lenses). The 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 lens looks tasty as well.

Of course, being one of the people who has been "waiting" as described above, I will have to be content to gaze from afar while I play with my new toy... ;-)


None can beat the Panasonic L1 "kit lens" :D

3.5-5.6? On a lens providing rather tame perspectives [I just wanted to forego the term 'standard']? Come on!

Nothing against zooms, they've come a long way since the 1960s, a very long way, and are optically quite good, often much better than old primes. Except for largest aperture. Not that it cannot be done, Nikon has the wonderful 70-200 mm VR with an opening of 2.8 - not bad for a big zoom with lots of glass.

VR is surely a nice addition to any lens, even to very wide wide angles and fisheye constructions. Unfortunately what is missing in Nikon's line-up are wide open primes [2.8 seems to me a limit to zooms, simply because they have much more glass and lengths compared to primes], something Nikon was once famous for. What about tilt-shifts and other specialised lenses?

Mind, I do have to rely on AF since my right eye will never give me a sharp viewfinder image [works well enough in conjunction with my left eye and on objects farther away].

If it had internal focusing... I'd love it so much more! Especially for using filters with a non-rotating front element

This might be a good time to ask a question that has been on my mind for some time: What exactly does "drawing" mean when we are talking about lenses? You used this word a couple of posts back and I've read it on other sites as well. Heck of a hard word to Google, though. I keep on getting hits about silly things like pencils and paper.

I find it so funny that manufacturers are offering F:4 lenses with two-stop "vibration reduction" and treating it like a break-though. What they need to do is use this new technology to really extend what can be done with a camera. Come on Canon and Nikon. Let's have a 50/1.4 lens with VR. That Pentax K10D looks better and better (ditto Sony, ditto Olympus . . . I know there are others, I just don't own the durn lenses).

Happy Thansgiving.

Ben Marks

I agree. My D40 with the standard zoom is lighter than air. But I usually have the bigger 18-200 lens on it due to the VR.

The comments to this entry are closed.