>From: Jim Loudon <jloudon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Still, what bugs me the most about all the shots I've taken with
>> the lens are the lack of contrast.
>
>There's a reproduction of a photo taken with the Zuiko 500mm mirror
>lens in the OM-System brochure... The illustration
>itself is low-contrast...
>
>I have a "no-name" 500mm mirror lens, also low-contrast...
I'm considering buying the lens that took the photo on
<http://www.saltspring.com/mikegluss/>. Notice how absolutely terrible the
contrast is -- NOT! Anyone care to guess what kind of lens it is? :-)
The three most important things about real estate are "location, location,
and location." The three most important things about astronomy are
"aperature, aperature, and aperature." The three most important things
about photography are "lighting, lighting, and lighting!" :-) No amount of
lens contrast is going to make up for flat lighting, and both the photos
cited as critical of mirror lenses had low contrast lighting.
I'm not trying to pick a fight here, it just seems that we fixate on what
isn't possible, rather than exploring what is possible. I have a no-name
400/5.6 refracting lens. I don't use it much, because it's heavy and
unwieldy. It never seems to fit in my bag right -- the bellows gets "first
in" rights. If I do get it in the truck, I don't take the lens very far
from the truck.
I'm looking at mirrors because some of them aren't much bigger or heavier
than a 50/1.4, and I'm hoping that will inspire me to use it more often.
Perhaps the low-contrast picture I take will be better than the one I would
have missed because I left "the monster" at home!
: Jan Steinman <mailto:jans@xxxxxxxxxxx>
: 19280 Rydman Court, West Linn, OR 97068-1331 USA
: +1.503.635.3229
< 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 >
|