I have read that the 24 elmarit-m has distortion of 2%. What does this mean in practical terms? Equally, the 24-85 contax n lens has 3%, apparently, at 24mm. I tested this lens and found the distortion quite noticable. Perhaps I got a bad sample: surely the 24 for m doesn't have objectionable distortion. Any thoughts?

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 08, 2002

Answers

Steve.

What you have in hand is a test lab.

In every days photgraphy you will not see it, I mean the comparison between the Contax and Leica.

I own the 24mm/F2.8 for the R system. It's a great lens but you need to know how to use the distorsion which is the principle of a wide angle. Here is an example: http://xavierf.b.free.fr/Edinburgh/edin05.jpg This is the "Wallace monument" of Edinburgh (Scotland, UK). THis shot was taken from its base. Here is another example in Edinburgh: http://xavierf.b.free.fr/Edinburgh/leith04.jpg Or again: http://xavierf.b.free.fr/Edinburgh/edin07.jpg

All were taken with the 24mm. Distorsion? Er, dynamism mostly.

Bad luck for you, the 24mm is among the prefered lenses...

Cheers. Xavier.

-- Xavier d'Alfort (hot_billexf@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002.

Steve; Distortion of a lens is very important in some applications such as mapping cameras; aerial photography/spy lenses; and Graphic Arts copying/Printing lenses..........There are lenses designed specially for low distortion such as the APO-Ronar on our process camera....

Photography of buildings is an area that a 35mm cameras lens should have low distortion.

In the classical photo of a brick wall test the bricks at the outside either curve inward or outward....The terms pincushion and barrel distortion are used; a 0% lens shows the wall as a perfect X,Y grid...

In practical terms it all depends on what you are shooting photos of....In most photos it does not matter much......

In lens design there are alot of trade offs; the huge market in Zoom Point and Shoot cameras have fairly average to good zooms; but the tend to have a good bit of distortion.....

-- Kelly Flanigan (zorki3c@netscape.net), June 08, 2002.

Xavier, thanks for the reply, but you could have used a better picture to get your point across couldn't you?

-- Steve Jones (stevenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 08, 2002.

Xavier, needless to say I did not post that insulting reply. TONY, please delete it. Give me strength...

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 08, 2002.

I did post some rude comments though, and I am sorry. Forgive me.

-- Steve Jones (stevenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 08, 2002.

Look at the e-mail address for fucks sake! He can't even spell my name.

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 08, 2002.

2% distortion is not unusual in wide angle lenses. You can digitally correct these distortions (any barrel or pincussion distortions or combinations) using my free Photoshop plug-in 'Panorama Tools', see

Regards

Helmut Dersch

-- Helmut Dersch (der@fh-furtwangen.de), June 08, 2002.

Thanks. We shall just ignore this troll and get on with life the best way we can. Why do some folk have to ruin it for the rest of us? I bet you it's that Phil Kneen come back to spread his filth and poison around again. I wrote to his IP the last time, but it hasn't worked I feel. It just makes me so unhappy, I'm sure that inside he is a nice man?

-- Steve Jones (stephenjjones@btopenworld.com), June 08, 2002.

Steve, stop reacting to this ass wipe, and maybe it'll go away. We'll all watch for the e-mail address, and ignore the trolls' postings. Your questions are good conversational points. Keep 'em coming. Oh, keep your eye on my address also, 'cause now I'll probably get high-jacked.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), June 09, 2002.