LensTip.com

Lens review

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro

18 December 2016
Szymon Starczewski

8. Vignetting

Let’s see how the tested lens performs in this category both for JPEG and RAW files developed by independent software.

E-PL1, JPEG, f/3.5 E-PL1, RAW, f/3.5
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro - Vignetting Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro - Vignetting
E-PL1, JPEG, f/4.0 E-PL1, RAW, f/4.0
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro - Vignetting Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro - Vignetting
E-PL1, JPEG, f/5.6 E-PL1, RAW, f/5.6
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro - Vignetting Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro - Vignetting


For JPEG files at the maximum relative aperture the vignetting reaches 29% (−0.98 EV) and is just 1% higher (−1.03 EV) for RAW files. When you close the aperture to f/4.0 the vignetting level decreases to 21% (−0.67 EV) for JPEG files and to 23% (−0.77 EV) for RAWs. Problems with that aberration end by f/5.6 where for JPEGs you still have to take into account a brightness loss of 10% (−0.30 EV), and for the RAW files that value is a bit higher, amounting to 12% (−0.39 EV).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - advertisement - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We also checked the vignetting performance with the help of the Olympus O-MD E-M5 Mark II. In the case of that camera the results were by 1-3 % higher than those we got with the lens attached to the E-PL1. On the one hand the difference might be due to different build of pixels and “microlenses” of particular camera sensors. On the other hand those 1-3% of discrepancies are the border value of our margin of error.

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 30 mm f/3.5 Macro - Vignetting