It's official. Olympus no longer makes good lenses
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: RichA on 24 Jun 2010 18:53 On Jun 24, 3:06 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >... 14-150mm zoom. They all suck. > > You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks. Aside from the mediocre review you mean?
From: Bruce on 24 Jun 2010 19:50 On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 24, 3:06�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >... 14-150mm zoom. �They all suck. >> >> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks. > >Aside from the mediocre review you mean? It was a mediocre piece of writing, that's for sure. But it told us very little about the lens - much less than you claim. You should wait for a review from a known source before jumping to any conclusions.
From: Doug McDonald on 24 Jun 2010 21:23 Bruce wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Jun 24, 3:06 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> ... 14-150mm zoom. They all suck. >>> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks. >> Aside from the mediocre review you mean? > > > It was a mediocre piece of writing, that's for sure. But it told us > very little about the lens - much less than you claim. > The writing in immaterial for that review. It has graphs, and they are mediocre. Doug McDonald
From: RichA on 25 Jun 2010 12:59 On Jun 24, 7:50 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Jun 24, 3:06 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >... 14-150mm zoom. They all suck. > > >> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks. > > >Aside from the mediocre review you mean? > > It was a mediocre piece of writing, that's for sure. But it told us > very little about the lens - much less than you claim. > Hardly. The resolution figures are awful as are the CA figures.
From: Bruce on 26 Jun 2010 11:02
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:59:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 24, 7:50�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:53:20 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >On Jun 24, 3:06�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 10:04:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >... 14-150mm zoom. �They all suck. >> >> >> You have presented no evidence that the 14-150mm zoom sucks. >> >> >Aside from the mediocre review you mean? >> >> It was a mediocre piece of writing, that's for sure. �But it told us >> very little about the lens - much less than you claim. >> > >Hardly. The resolution figures are awful as are the CA figures. What on earth do you expect from a 10.7X zoom? The optical performance is on a par with the much more expensive Panasonic lens of the same focal length range. The Olympus is therefore quite a bargain. Anyone expecting optical excellence will inevitably be disappointed by any 10X zoom. The Olympus and Panasonic 14-150mm lenses are the direct equivalent of the 28-300mm consumer grade zooms for 35mm SLRs, or 18-200mm consumer grade zooms for APS-C (DX) DSLRs. Some are better than others, but there just aren't any *good* ones. The laws of physics don't allow a cheap 10X zoom lens to perform well. No matter how much you diss it, the Olympus M ZD 14-150mm is no worse than any other 10X zoom lens, and is probably better than most. It is a lens for those who value convenience and a reasonable price over ultimate optical quality. |