In following the batteries thread, I was struck by discussion of the OM
system attempting to emulate Leica. From time to time I've noticed others
referring to the leica/leitz qualities of the older SC lens as opposed to
Nikkoresque qualities of the newer MCs.
I've shot quite a bit w/ a IIIf 35/50/90/135 set up and despite the various
hassles involved, I really like some of the negatives I've made; as I've
mentioned before on this list I love my old beat up SC 24/2.8 and I'm very
impressed with my SC 21/3.5--both posses certain qualities I'm pressed to
describe; lately I've been carrying an LC (w/ a G. Zuiko 43/1.7) everywhere
I go, and (again) I notice what I might call certain 'magical' qualities in
the images produced. No doubt I'm talking about deficiencies in lens
design--flare, distortion etc.. In fact, I tend only to use these
lens/cameras to shoot b&w (pan-f/apx-100 developed in Rodinal (1:50), a
combination which tends to produce a special type of image), while using the
newer MC lens on my OM-4 for the chromes. But I'd really like to hear
other's observations so that I might learn a bit more about the phenomenon.
Three questions: 1. is this change in characteristics from Leitz-like to
Nikkoresque based solely on observations of the lens performance by users,
or is there a documented shift in OM design philosophy? 2. what lenses fall
under the first category (24/2.8, 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 135/3.5 . . . )? 3.
Anyone care to describe or qualify these differences?
Glen
< 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 >
|