It is no mystery to this group that I have a preference for the
older SC lenses. Much of this has been economics and
availability. The only lenses I own that I would have preferred
to be MC is the 24/2.8 and the 50/3.5. Both of these lenses
tend to flare horribly without any encouragement.
One person's flare is another person's opportunity. The 100/2.8
SC in my bag has such a unique character to it, that I gladly
put up with flare potential for the gains in bokeh, warmth and
sharpness. However, it is married to a rubber lens hood.
Having looked at newer 100's, I feel no compelling to
upgrade--in fact, quite the opposite. This lens has proven over
and over to be the most valuable lens I've ever owned.
Portraits are a sure sell with this lens. MC versions of this
lens possess a different lens formula and blade shape that,
although possibly slightly more "accurate", just doesn't have
the "character" I love. I've earned a nice income with this
lens.
The 35/2.8 SC (my second--thanks Tom) is also a dream lens.
This lens is plenty sharp (especially so when stopped down), but
the color rendition is as pleasing as you could ever imagine.
I don't use filters, unless it's for B&W work. My lenses are
naked, except for the occasional lens hood. When shooting
flowers, I would also state that SC lenses may be slightly more
color accurate because of the lower UV filtering, but this is
strictly opinion. My SC lenses and "neutral" slide films such
as Ektachrome 64 (now 100) and Astia just come out flat and
lifeless. Saturated films like Velvia and Provia match very
well to the SC lenses (IMHO), and may have ever so slightly
better shadow detail than with MC lenses.
For B&W work, SC lenses are better with shadow detail (brings up
the bottom a little bit), however the MC lenses are typically a
bit sharper. The healthy "glow" that I get from SC lenses in
color work is essentially lost in B&W work. In nature shots
like sunlit birch trees against a dark forest, you will get more
"haloing" with the SC lenses, but that may not necessarily be a
bad thing. Much of Ansel Adams' work utilized the flare of the
lens/filters in these situations to soften an otherwise harsh
scene.
In comparison, my IS-3 has a very nice lens, and takes
exceptionally good pictures. However, it lacks that "artistic
edge" that some of my SC primes have. This "edge" is more of an
intangible than something that can be measured. Modern Nikkor
and EOS zooms may be extremely sharp (yowza sharp), but the
bokeh is blown to bits. Out of focus highlights render as
donuts instead of nice diffuse blobs. Is this a measurable
thing or is it strictly visual interpretation?
Which are better? MC or SC lenses? Easy. MC lenses are better
in most respects. However, I have never turned down, nor will I
turn down any opportunity to acquire a SC lens of a focal length
I don't currently have. If I had my druthers, my 24/2.8 would
be a MC lens, but I just try to avoid or work around its
limitations. In this "MC preferred" world, I've acquired a
couple very nice lenses at a wonderful price because they were
SC--not to mention two others that were just plain given to me.
Do you think I'd be so stupid as to say "sorry I don't want your
stinkin SC lenses"? DUH!
I'll run SC lenses to the very end of my time with Olympus.
Maybe pickup a 24/2.8 MC, but that would most likely be it.
AG-Schnozz
V 06415.17
H 04201.10
NWTNIA0A015
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.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 >
|