Well, just to be on the side of "different strokes" here...
I have a Zuiko 500mm Reflex lens. I really like it. Is the Bokeh weird? Yep.
Does it have less contrast than refractive lenses? Yep. Does it beat
carrying around a long, heavy, unwieldy "long lens"? Hell, yep.
I don't really mind the "bad bokeh" as most people refer to it. As long as I
can shoot so that I don't have zillions of very bright doughnuts, I'm Ok
with it. It's not the smooth creamy kind of effect you get with some of the
"better" Zuikos, but I can live with it.
Where it's useful, to me anyway, is in "grab shots" of wildlife. There's
just no way I can wing a long lens into position, focus and shoot as easily
as I can the Reflex lens. It also works nicely to compress perspective and
"get close" to things I can't walk closer to. And, finally, I don't have to
be lugging a tripod along to use it, assuming it's a bright, sunny day. Not
to mention I can tuck the 500 into a largish jacket pocket...
Ideally, I'd like to have both a refractive 500+ and the Reflex. But there's
just no way I can justify the cost of a refractive long lens of any quality.
The Reflex lens is a good compromise for me.
Then there's the OM-ish reasons. I didn't have one, I needed another Zuiko
fix right then, and the price was right...
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel J. Mitchell [mailto:DanielMitchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: RE: [OM] Long Focus vs. Mirror Lens
<snip>
It sounds as if mirror lenses have a whole lot of things against them in
terms of usability -- is the cheapness+lesser weight enough of a benefit, or
are they only really something you carry 'just in case'?
-- dan
< 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 >
|