| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2005 08:09:25 AM · #1 |
Danijel Turina from Croatia is one of the first to get his hands on the Olympus Digital Zuiko 35-100 1:2.0.
World first f2.0 zoom
It's going to be interesting winter...
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:14:52 AM · #2 |
That's a way-cool looking piece of glass. What's it gonna cost?
R.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:15:40 AM · #3 |
Interesting lens. Not too far off a 200/1.8L, but zoom!
The thing I don't understand about Olympus lenses is, if it's "full frame" for that size sensor, why are they using "35-100" instead of "70-200"?
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:18:34 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
That's a way-cool looking piece of glass. What's it gonna cost?
R. |
Some arms and legs... $3000 has been mentioned
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:19:06 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Interesting lens. Not too far off a 200/1.8L, but zoom!
The thing I don't understand about Olympus lenses is, if it's "full frame" for that size sensor, why are they using "35-100" instead of "70-200"? |
4/3 full frame is different from 35mm full frame ;)
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:21:17 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
why are they using "35-100" instead of "70-200"? |
4/3 full frame is different from 35mm full frame ;) |
But they label the lenses as if they were for a 35mm frame, don't they?
Message edited by author 2005-08-25 08:21:44.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:25:00 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
why are they using "35-100" instead of "70-200"? |
4/3 full frame is different from 35mm full frame ;) |
But they label the lenses as if they were for a 35mm frame, don't they? |
No. They use (as they should) real mm...
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:26:38 AM · #8 |
The label on the lens would still be 35-100 if you would use one build for 35mm or medium format or DX/APS-C. The mm on the lens has little to do with the format you're using.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 08:27:23 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
why are they using "35-100" instead of "70-200"? |
No. They use (as they should) real mm... |
Sounds confusing for consumers, to me..
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 04:26:13 PM · #10 |
His samples are a bit small but the crops that you can see via the "more images" link are promising. Sweet bokeh if you ask me.
If I had a 4/3 system I'd definitely consider one.
(edit: I should read before asking again about price.)
Message edited by author 2005-08-25 16:37:52.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 04:35:52 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by bear_music:
That's a way-cool looking piece of glass. What's it gonna cost?
R. |
Some arms and legs... $3000 has been mentioned |
I really want this lens too! Now the question is how do I convince my wife I need to spend another $3000 for another lens?
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 05:09:48 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
His samples are a bit small but the crops that you can see via the "more images" link are promising. Sweet bokeh if you ask me.
If I had a 4/3 system I'd definitely consider one.
(edit: I should read before asking again about price.) |
Click the small image in the frame and it will open a window with a bigger image. |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 05:23:55 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 07:01:18 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 07:22:17 PM · #15 |
Looks alot better with the Lens Hood not on Backwards!! :) |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 10:42:21 AM · #16 |
Cool lens. I was looking into the E-1 2 years ago exactly because of this type of lens.
Shame I settled for to 10D on grounds of noise and cost.
Major bummer. you can't win 'em all.
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Sounds confusing for consumers, to me.. |
What?
Could you run that by me again..
How is it any more confusing than EOS EFS or Nikon DX lenses?
Infact it must be less confusing wouldn't you say? After all it is a 2* multiplier rather than a 1.5* 1.6* multiplier... Makes for easier maths.
Top that there are only one set of lenses for the 4/3 rds system, full frame, whereas both Canon and Nikon have full frame and crop lenses...
You should know that as you own a 300D.
And how do you explain the EF-S 10-22 not being confusing to consumers anyway?
After all it can't be used on all Canon EOS cameras can it?
You need to work out the equivalent mm rating.
And its not FF for its mount either.
Sounds like there is a lot wrong with it to me...
And your thinking that 4/3 rds is confusing.
Are you: --
1) Confused that there is more than 1 type of "full frame"
- 35mm
- Medium Format
- Large Format
- etc.
2) just bitching because you can't get an equivalent lens
3) trying to say Canon users are smarter than 4/3 rds users
4) unable to see/acknowledge the advantages of other systems
I am guessing number 1, and am willing to furnish you with more information on this subject it you wish.
Feel free to PM me and I will try to help you understand the various full frame formats.
Droooooling with jealousy over this lens. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 11:10:56 AM · #17 |
| JUST IMAGINE WHAT OUR OLYMPUS FIEND BRADP WOULD DO WITH THIS THING? |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 11:17:33 AM · #18 |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 01:07:09 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 01:14:22 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Runwin:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Sounds confusing for consumers, to me.. |
How is it any more confusing than EOS EFS or Nikon DX lenses? |
At least Canon/Nikon have a reason for it - they have multiple size sensors, not to mention film.
It's significantly worse for Olympus because they only have one size sensor, and judging by it's 2x crop, will only ever have one size sensor. (Unless they've going even more telephoto.)
I couldn't care less what the real mm rating is. Do I care my point and shoot is actually 5.7-16mm? Of course not. I only care what the effective range of the lens is.
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 13:17:06.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 01:55:11 PM · #21 |
People are used to having lenses named in terms of focal length relative to a 35mm film sized focal plane. The new 4/3 standards does not use 35mm as a reference point in naming their lenses. Why should they when none of these new lenses are intented to be used with 35mm film cameras or the equivilent so-called full frame sensors.
I think a fixed size for the sensor is part of the new standard so there will be no crop factor variation from one camera to the next.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 02:33:49 PM · #22 |
I have to divide the focal length in half of my 6x7 lens to get a 35mm comparison. So when I use 300mm it's actually like a 150mm on a 35mm camera. Camera's formats have always been different in regards to the lenses.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 02:50:19 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens. |
Unless I am mistaken, the image stabilization have nothing to do with faster lens. All it gives you is ability to shoot at slower shutter speed. It doesn't help at all if in fact you want faster shutter speed for fast action. Also, the depth of field and bokeh caracteristic would be different between a f2.8 and f2.0 lens; pretty much like between a f4.0 and f2.8 lens. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 03:02:39 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens. |
I mean a 35mm equiv. 35-100 2.0, and sure put IS in it if you want. That's not the same as the 70-200 IS, and no 2.8 is not as fast as 2.0 in low light with movement. IS is nice for what it does, but it's not a substitute in all cases.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 03:08:57 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by MeThoS:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
make canon produce one. |
no need. the 70-200 2.8 IS is effectively 2 stops faster because of the IS. They don't have the market to produce the lens. |
I mean a 35mm equiv. 35-100 2.0, and sure put IS in it if you want. That's not the same as the 70-200 IS, and no 2.8 is not as fast as 2.0 in low light with movement. IS is nice for what it does, but it's not a substitute in all cases. |
Never said it was, I just was telling you the Canon thinks and has marketed their IS lenses...
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 06:05:14 PM EDT.
