I don't think you're alone with these feelings re "better" gear.
Fortunately, you're in a convenient product system with that concern in
mind. Or at least at one time you would have been. Now it's a different
story as Olympus seemingly winds down and completely out of the field of
field emulsion and apparently couldn't care less. Sad, that, not only for
Olympus camera owners but for the field of photography as a whole.
But listen: Zuiko lenses are the best around. Except for an exceptions here
and there all of them rate right toward the top of the profession's charts,
if not at the very top. For what they are--always keep that in mind, always
keep in mind these are mere instruments in our hands employed toward the
greater photographic purpose--Zuikos represent a kind of state of the art,
on balance. And these modest-looking devices from Zuiko are not just good
on paper--they happen to perform in the field as well as (and quite often
better than) their counterparts which in many cases cost more--in some
cases considerably more.
I'm not about to knock Leica/Zeiss product, for in its own way these German
products, too, represent excellence. By the same token I will refuse to
engage in the demented Nikon/Canon/Olympus dialogue/pissing match of
comparative appreciation for all things photographic. It's all quite
pointless. Instead, I'll try to move you happily to the bottom line: as the
owner of an Olympus system you can walk around with a "humble" 50mm f1.8
screwed on to the front of your OM-1(whatever) and, given a keen eye and
reasonable application, perceive, compose and render photographs as
"professional" as you please, and I don't care what the next man has in his
hands. And we haven't even begun to address the very practical questions of
cartage to and from the field, and actual use in the field, at which
juncture Olympus shows its heels to the competition and simply scampers away.
I'm not what I would consider to be an "expert" photographer, far from it
in fact, so please do not take this as arrogant exposition of truth; I
have, however, worked as a so-called professional (a photojournalist per se
who earned his living from this in the field) and so I have learned one or
two things (albeit the hard way) re pictures and the art and science these
things spring from, and when it all boils down I just don't think there's a
helluva lot of practical disparity between a normal 1.8 and 1.2 on the vast
majority of occasions these lenses are used. Indeed, the "best" normal lens
in the Olympus line for purposes of field work is probably not the 50/1.2
but (by reputation) the 1.4, and if not that lens then the 50/1.8 or either
one of one of the 35mm lenses. (I haven't worked with the 35mm f2, by the
way, so for all I know it could have special issues over and above its
ability to capture and focus light. All I could afford out of school was
the f2.8, and it's sweet enough for honest day-to-day work. Given my
experience with the 50/f1.2 I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the
35/f2.8 to be a more practical take-along candidate than its faster f2
brother, but again, I don't know.
To digress, further, I don't think of the 35's as wide-angles lenses but
rather as "normals." In that grouping, then, I'd have the Zuiko spread of
35mm through 55mm. Of course I might be the only man on our planet who
holds that appreciation. Not to bore you, but in real-world use the 50mm
renders a somewhat more restricted field of view than what a human being
would see without a camera pressed tightly to his eye. The quaint 40mm f2
sits more or less squarely on that point of reference. So, when you think
on it independently you might better visualize that a 35mm lens in
actuality varies less to its directional side of this "normal" point of
view than does the 55mm at the other extreme. For me, wide angles start
with the 28mm Zuikos.
You should look at that as a sort of warm-up, or preface (by way of
explanation) to my appreciation of the field and the Olympus system.
You write that your reference was to the 100/f2.8 vis-a-vis the f2. We're
not on the same page here as I have never worked with the 100mm f2.8 and so
it could be anything at all. That it works well for you surprises me not at
all. It is a benchmark characteristic of the Zuiko series that no matter
what (almost) a photographer chooses (or is forced) to take with him will
afford stellar performance. As I noted earlier, the real limitation (call
it cap) on photographic achievement lies less with equipment and more with
the potential of the material (film) we have available to use in
conjuncture with this equipment.
Yes, you should get the 100/2 if at all possible. For one thing it's an
excellent lens, for another it's a different lens and so will (must)
operate differently, and your use with it will provide you with more
experience. But that doesn't mean it's gonna outperform what you already
have. It might at that, but the 100/2.8 could have sweet spots the 2 can't
touch, an old tradeoff.
You also mention weight and balance of the 2.8. How about its ease of
focus? These considerations are not to be sneezed at.
Zuiko filter demands aren't that rugged. You're basically looking at two
steps: 49/55mm collar sizes, so a 49mm-50mm step-up ring will
serve yeoman's duty. Also, there is the alternative (actually it's more of
a progressive or complimentary approach) of setting yourself up with a
large modular, square-filter system. You have several ways to move with
this in mind; the most cost-effective is offered by the Cokin X-Pro series.
These quality filters run out to 130mm and will provide you will all the
benefits of your present screw-ins, provided we only speak to tripod work,
plus they afford you the ability to move one day into larger format work if
you so desire, with no further upgrade required. For walking around,
everyday use of your SLR you're stuck with screw-ins, though again, as you
can set yourself up handsomely with a Zuiko lens complement that only
requires to the two sized collars of 49mm/50mm it's not the end of the world.
For rest of it, yes, there's some envy in there at work when it comes to
"faster" and "better" and all that. Just try to keep in mind that no matter
what Zuiko (or Olympus camera body) you walk out there with the guy next to
uses something not (on balance) as proficient, and quite likely paid more
into the bargain. And if you've been paying attention you'll understand why
this is God's truth. For those who cannot (or do not care to) see this
distinction, less luck. But then that's just the way of life.
Finally, money is a factor, and the odds are for most hobbyists that the
older they become the more able they will find themselves to indulge in
this obsession of "more and better." But hell, photography is as
worthwhile a pursuit as any, and you can't take it with you!
Tris
At 10:17 PM 7/22/01 +0200, you wrote:
Almost forgot about the 28mm f2, which was our main topic. What it does
with light images stops nothing short of superb. Can't speak to the f2.8
as I've never worked with one. It could be very competent as well. But
the 2's something special, and that's for sure.
Tris
Yes, I was refering to the 100/2.8 vs the 100/2, I forgot to mention that.
Thing is I have the 2.8 silvernose and like it a lot - for light weight
and compactness, acceptable speed, colour, 49 mm filters etc. But - and
here's the problem - it always feels I "should" get the f2 version of
every lens, though they are often heavier, more expensive and I will have
to start collecting a new round of filters. It's like the feeling you had
in school when "everybody" else had the new fast bike, or the "right" logo
on their jeans. Or is this just plain ol' dirty Zuikoholism; "gimmie
more"? I even started thinking of changing occupation (run a theatre now -
not a lot of money in that) to be able to buy that 2/3 stop faster version
of a lens I already have. Then again, I know some of you out there will
gladly buy two 4T's in a day; no names mentioned;-)
Well, this mail didn't really lead to anything, time for bed.
Henrik
< 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 >
|