On Thu, 19 Feb 1998, Jeff Spirer wrote:
> I agree with this. I use some lenses that are definitely considered
> "sub-standard" by current "objective" testing yet they do exactly what I
> want. I find that modern lenses optimized for sharpness and contrast may
> not yield attractive images for some types of photography.
This is also true for different current lens designs. Too many
photographers become enraptured by the technical to even notice.
> I find the results of my Olympus 35RD (1970s) and Rollei TLR (1961) to be
> far more to my liking than more modern lenses (including Zuiko) that I have
> used.
I have a Rollei with the Planar 3.5 Zeiss and an early one. Love'em
both.
> But I think it goes beyond
> out-of-focus areas - the in-focus areas look *different* too in a way that
> goes beyond being sharper or more contrastier.
I agree 100%. I don't know what to call it, so I call it "flavor", and
it is what Marco described as the "Magnum" look (in the case of the 28mm
Nikkor). I knew exactly what he meant. For certain kinds of
images/visions, one will find specific lenses that match them best. I
owned many makes of cameras, and realized that some lenses simply
resonated/harmonized/synchronized with my vision much better than others.
This is a personal, subjective thing that can best be gleaned by
experience and experimentation (like finding the perfect camera bag!).
It is one of the things that brought me to use OM.
*= Doris Fang =*
############################################################
| This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List
| To receive the Digest version mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "subscribe olympus-digest" in the message body.
| To unsubscribe from the current list mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| with "unsubscribe olympus" in the body.
| For questions mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html
############################################################
|