You need it a lens to visit the zoo?
I liked what I saw there.
(11-30-2019, 09:05 AM)borisbg Wrote: [ -> ]You need it a lens to visit the zoo?
Or airshows, or car races, or national parks.
It's a specialized lens, of course - as are many others.
Would love to see the actual test of this one, Klaus.
I have PL 100-400 for a year and a half and love it for what it is intended for: long reach in a very manageable package.
f6.3 seems too slow for the long end to obtain optimal resolution but i probably said that years ago when it was announced. The oly which is 4.x fix aperture might be a better lens - i guess they need to come up with a new way to prevent diffraction of a small lens
You know adjust those laws of physics or something.
(12-02-2019, 02:28 PM)you2 Wrote: [ -> ]f6.3 seems too slow for the long end to obtain optimal resolution but i probably said that years ago when it was announced. The oly which is 4.x fix aperture might be a better lens - i guess they need to come up with a new way to prevent diffraction of a small lens You know adjust those laws of physics or something.
What they can do is develop advanced deconvolution for their RAW converter, with detailed lens profiling for the lens. Then they could (mostly) undo what diffraction "lost". Canon offers such functionality in combination with DPP and Canon lenses and lens profiles.
Here is an example, where the diffraction is known (lens profile, but in this example it is simulated diffraction):
http://dougkerr.net//images/technical/di...on_02A.jpg
In the middle is the original image. On the left is the simulated f32 diffraction image. On the right is the f32 deconvoluted image. I understand that this f32 is in FF terms, so f16 in MFTerms.
Nice example. It makes me wonder how they do it.