Tris
A sincere thank you for sharing your discerning thoughts. It's nice
to hear peoples views about the philosophy around photography.
Henrik
Tris wrote:
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
|