[I hate to interrupt the political list with photography, but...]
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Phillip Franklin wrote:
<multiple snips throughout>
> I've had the 75-150 zoom for many years. I bought it new way back then.
> To be honest I think it was the best damn 35mm format studio portrait
> lens I have ever used.<snip> Maybe it's
> contrast is a little weak for copy work or detailed color product work,
> but it's perfect for quality portrait work. It has extremely fine
> resolution and sharpness, so the detail is there in the face (every eye
> lash) but it does not bring attention to slight skin coloration &
> gradations on the human face. Also a mediocre make up job is not to too
> evident because of the very moderate contrast. A perfect studio portrait
> lens. I don't know why so many have dissed this lens. At its
> introduction date it was considered the sharpest 35mm format zoom lens
> made. <snip>
> What do others think of this?
I haven't owned a 70-150 (yet), but Philip's comments on
how certain lens qualities --- that technoids think of as horrible
faults --- can most useful are right on the mark. Sometimes I get the
feeling that if someone (it would be Zeiss, I imagine) could bend
the laws of physics and produce a perfect lens, there would be a huge
stampede of photo-sheep to that altar, and a grand day for those of
us who are interested in the way lenses serve us in our image-making
instead of feeling empowered (photo-Viagra ? :-) by numbers on a chart.
Many see that very potential in using various films, but not
when it comes to lenses. I am glad to see Philip bringing this point
up.
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|