About the only thing I can add is that I do have a 21/3.5 silvernose and
love the lens. From an academic point of view is the MC version better?
Probably, but I love the little lens. I have a mix of SC and MC and have
tended to make my keeper the WORST lens that has passed through my hands.
Why? Because they're cheaper, of course. Seriously, though, I tend to agree
with Ken. The results are exceptional and I can count on one hand the number
of shots in the last 20 years that have been ruined by flare. Does it
happen? Sure. Would I have fewer with all MC lenses? Probably. Am I going
to run out and upgrade? Nope. I actually have the same opinion of the fast
versus slow lenses. I've owned both the 21/2 and 21/3.5. Which did I keep?
The 21/3.5. In the circumstances that I use the lens, the difference in
speed isn't a big deal. The 21/3.5 is so much smaller and lighter that I
can take a much bigger kit with the same weight. I made the same decision
on the 24, 28, 35, 135 and 200 lenses too. OK, so I have a 100/2 and
180/2.8, but they sit on the shelf more than the 100/2.8 and 200/5 do.
I use these things, even though I enjoy looking at them on the shelf. I
worry less and use them more when I have equipment that I'm not worried if
it gets worn. My most frequently used body is an OM-4T that is almost down
to the Ti on the top. Brass, brass, brass. Hey, it looks good to me. I
also own a Black 4T that probably qualifies as mint. Does I use it? Almost
never. Who wants to beat it up?
If the silvernose 21/3.5 has clean glass, buy it. You won't regret it. My
21 gets 10 times the use of any other wide angle.
Tom
> > 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 >
>
< 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 >
|