Hooboy, here comes the firestorm of messages...
For myself, I can't really speak for or against the fast glass preferences.
I understand that the faster glass will make composition in dim places more
palatible. But as for the qualities of the images one gets between a f3.5
and a f2.0 (xxmm), I couldn't say.
One type of comparison I've never seen is side-by-side comparisons of Zuiko
lenses in real use, not lab tests. Lab tests shooting at a 1951 AF card
provide the technical measurements of clarity, contrast and aberations, but
I think real world common objects arranged in a scene would make for the
comparison that most users could appreciate. Put the camera on a tripod, set
up lighting, shoot the same scene with each lens wide open, 2 mid range
apertures and closed tight. Then apply your own subjective appraisal. I
suspect that between Zuiks the real differences that people will notice is
the wide open bokeh, and the ability to shoot with a little less light (both
viewfinder comfort and exposure gains). For most uses, the differences would
be subtle.
>From day one, I've always wanted fast glass. I think it's been a primal
desire. I like the bright viewfinder when the 50/1.4 is on the camera. But I
haven't jumped into the fray of the high speed teles or wides as yet. I
suspect I will eventually, but I don't have an overbearing need to, that
I've experienced yet. This may sound like I'm blind, but I took some posed
flash photos of the family in front of our fireplace. For some I used the
50/1.4. For some others I used the Tamron 28-200. I have not found any
remarkable difference in the quality of the shots. They are all sharp, good
balanced color with the details I expected. The major difference was not in
the images themselves, but in the composition process. The 50 was much
brighter in the viewfinder and easier to focus.
I fully expect the owners/users of the high speed glass to want to enlighten
me. After all, how could I make such statements based on my limited
experience? I look at photographs. I've seen extraordinary photographs taken
with both slow and fast lenses. I've seen perfectly ordinary photographs
taken with them as well. The difference occurs *behind* the viewfinder. Many
of our fast glass owning friends are extraordinary photographers. I don't
attribute that to the glass.
Back to life...
Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: <miaim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 7:33 AM
Subject: [OM] Fast lenses, slow photographers and other opinion
> 1st off, let me express my deep and sincere gratitude to Gary and others
> that have spent so much time documenting the differences, however subtle
> they may be, between various lenses. It makes interesting reading. But let
> me offer a completely contrarian view.
>
> Now let me say why I don't think it should make a hoot to most
> photographers whether their favorite lens is f2 or f2.8. Actually, let me
> rephrase that a bit. I think it may well be that paying more for heavier,
> faster, better coated lenses is really a ripoff for most people. I'm very
> much of the lighter, smaller is better frame of mind. The only reason I
> even bother with 35mm format at all is that I can carry an entirely
capable
> OM system in a small fanny pack. Others have mentioned why they think
> paying large amounts of cash for fast lenses makes sense in terms of
better
> designs and better coatings. For them, I say hurrah. For the rest, I'll
> attempt to debunk some misconceptions.
>
> *Pros use fast lenses-- Name your favorite 1/2 dozen photographers of all
> time. I'm betting that if you even know the type of gear they use, their
> best works weren't dependent on using fast lenses gagged wide open.
>
> *Fast lenses allow more opportunities-- How many examples are there of
> really good photographs that depended on "grab" type shots where the only
> solution depended on having an extra stop? Like the above example,
> typically good works depend on slow deliberate actions. The world doesn't
> need more snapshots.
>
> *Faster lenses usually have better optics.-- So what? If you want better
> resolution, better tonality and MUCH more pleasing enlargements, go to a
> larger format. A $200-$300 antique medium format camera with f3.5 lens
> beats even the best and fastest 35mm lens in real world enlargement tests.
> If you're only getting 4"x6" prints made, nobody is likely to notice or
> care whether you used the latest designed f2 or an older cheaper f2.8 If
> you're enlarging beyond 6"x9", do yourself and your viewers a favor and
use
> a format larger than 35mm.
>
> *Faster lenses often have better coatings-- Again, So What? How often do
> you _really_ take photos aimed towards the sun? Better coatings offer
> better glare resistance, but for anything short of quartering towards the
> sun, a hood on a less coated lens works pretty well.
>
> *Faster lenses are necessary for low light and available light situations.
> -- Today's films have made that far less true than it once was.
> Astrophotographers shoot in the dark without regard to nominal lens speed.
> If you really want to shoot in low light, learn to develop your own film
in
> very weak developing solutions which will enable using film far faster
than
> most people realize when looking at the finished prints.
>
> *Faster lenses offer more options and better performance.-- Not
> necessarily. Considering that most lenses do best stopped down 2-3 stops,
> many super fast lenses reach their peak performance before they acheive
> good depth of field.
>
> *Faster lenses are a better long term investment.-- That may be true, but
> if anybody is relying on their collection of antique, obsolete OM gear to
> fund their retirement, perhaps they should look into better financial
> planning. ;-)
>
> Mike's theory of OM gear-- Buy the mid-grade f2.8 lenses. They're smaller,
> lighter, take 49mm filters, and you won't have to worry about their
> "collectibility" which will free you to use them and use them and use
them,
> while others talk about their collections. ;-)
>
> Mike Swaim--
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|