> Garth or Ken; Wasn't it one of you two that eschewed all
things complex
> (particularly MC) and reverted to an all SC, even to the point
of all silver
> nosed, small kit???? Just curious if that included a silver
nosed 21/3.5.
No, I don't have a 21/3.5 of any flavour. Can't help you there.
But about this anti-modernistic thing--guilty as charged. Well
sorta. It's mostly a forced attribute thanks to financial
realities. Even at the outset I bought used equipment which
meant SC lenses were what was available in 1987. My 100/2.8 was
my first lens and it remains my favorite. Does it flare a bit
more than the newer MC versions? Sure, but it also has a couple
characteristics which, for me, make it superior. It is a
slightly warmer lens than the newer lenses (any radioactive
elements are a result of too much airline travel, but that's
another story), and it has unbelievable bokeh characteristics at
F4 and F5.6. I believe that the newer versions have slightly
different iris blades which do not operate like mine. Mine is
so sharp that I hesitate to risk getting a different 100mm lens
that doesn't work as well. I will shed tears when it is
lost/stolen/sold/broken/retired.
The 24/2.8 is SC, but really is a pain. This is one lens that I
really would like to have the latest/greatest coatings for.
Granted, mine has been dropped, smashed and banged enough that
the glass is probably stressed beyond belief. The SC version of
this lens is OK, but when given the choice, go MC.
My (new to me) 50/3.5 is SC and is such an excellent lens and
flares less than anything else I've owned so even though MC
might be better, I'm not going to compare to find out. The SC
is serving my needs perfectly. The way I shoot, I don't need
the MC version.
The 200/4 is SC. Again, financial realities. However, I am
pleased with it and it flares very little. The built-in hood
works well. The 200/4 (and my previous one-RIP) flare less than
ANY other tele or zoom I've owned--and they were all MC lenses.
Retro-grouch? More like a realist. I just completed the filing
of around 1700 slides that had escaped their sheets (published,
etc) or never were filed in the first place. I was making note
of which lens was used for the shots and rarely was flare ever
present or contrast reduced by the SC lenses. Granted, I do
shoot slightly differently than others and I shield the lens
with my hand when the lens is shining on the glass (but out of
the frame) so the older designs have been fine for me. The
other aspect of this is tonal qualities. I happen to prefer the
warmer look of the older lenses than the sterilness of some of
the newer glass.
My set of lenses may not be as colour accurate as the newer
glass, may be less contrasty, and may not even be as sharp as
the latest. However, just like vehicles, you adapt to the way
they handle. My preferred film is Velvia. Why? Because it
seems to be a nearly perfect match to my SC glass. It ups the
contrast to keep the shadows from getting muddy and saturates
those colors which may flatten out some. Flat films such as
Astia and some of the Ektachromes just die a fast death with my
lenses. SC lenses seem to work great for portrait and B&W work
too. I've learned not to use warming filters (or any filter if
at all possible) with my SC lenses as you can kiss the blues
goodbye.
I have no allusions that SC lenses are superior to MC lenses.
Quite the opposite. If I was starting out, I'd get only MC
glass if possible. But given my tens of thousands of pictures
successfully shot with SC lenses, I have no hesitation in
continuing to do so until I change systems entirely.
Best of all, the silver-nosed lenses just look cool! Like
chrome wheels on a low-rider.
Ken (retrogrouch) Norton
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|