Ingemar Uvhagen wrote:
>To sum up the question I had about what telephoto lens to go for:
>(..)
>4. That I should avoid any mirror lens.
>(..)
>There are a whole lot more to be said, and I still wonder. I must say
>though, that point 3 and 4 seem to be the best, due to the
cost/quality.
>Have I understand it all? Is there something I have missed? Let me know
>then!
A lot of negative things have been said about mirror lenses. I think
that doesn't do them justice. Yes they are slow, hard to focus and
maybe not as sharp as conventional designs, but mirror lenses have
unique properties that put them in their own niche.
Given their huge focal lenghth they are relatively light and short.
Their shortest focusing distance is in many cases much shorter than
conventional super teles (for instance my Tokina 500 mm focuses to 1.5
m!).
All this means that in many cases you might consider taking a reflex
lens along, where you would leave the heavy 300 mm or 400 at home
because of its weight, so that's a choice of super telephotography at
maybe reduced sharpness or no super telephotography at all, or
experimenting with teleconverters that possibly degrade picture quality
more than reflex lenses do. I think even the 200 mm/F4 + 2xA combi is
heavier than the reflex, and this combi should be stopped 1 or 2 stops
to give optimal result (resulting in F11 or F16, and still needing
1/500 for handheld shots...)
Reflex lenses can be handheld, much easier than a conventional 400 mm
anyway, provided you're relaxed and can achieve a shutter speed of
1/500 or, preferrably, 1/1000 sec.
Because mirror lenses don't *look* like super teles (but more like fat
zooms) you can take super tele pictures of people much easier, either
candid or straight forward. Most people don't like it when (super)
teles are pointed at them because they think it's threatening, and they
will get annoid, shy or maybe even angry, or start acting.
I've taken some pictures of people with a reflex lens at relatively
short distances where they actually *did* realize their picture was
taken but didn't bother. One portrait of a Hare Krisha girl taken at a
distance of just 3 meters at the Dam in Amsterdam (which is a very
crowded place right in the centre); she fills the frame, looks relaxed
and the background is completely blurred and dark as if it were a
studio shot. I don't think this shot could have been made with a 300 mm
or 400 mm lens, not at all or certainly not as easy.
Hans
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|