Before I get all involved with details, almost any lens is capable of
good photographs, depending on what it is being used for and who is
using it. You might check out
<http://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm>. Many of the great photos
you have admired from great photogs were taken with lenses that would
test as poor by current standards.
tOM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On Friday, May 21, 2004 at 2:19,
>yahweh111 <OMCameras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>>As I've been researching lens to use with my Om4, I read somewhere that
>>certain type lenses are the "best". For example, 24/2, 55/1.2, and
>>135/2.8 because theyre so fast. But as I shop on ebay, I'm confronted
>>with so many brand names. Zuiko, Tokina, Vivitar, Tamron?
>>
Tamron, Tokina, Kiron and Vivitar have made and make some lenses as good
as any major camera manufacturers. All but Kiron also made/make various
secondary level and cheaper lenses. The Tamron SP series and Tokina AT-X
series are generally first rate lenses. For example, the Tamron SP
80-200/2.8 is generally regarded as the best MF lens in that focal
length ever made by anyone and better than many single focal length
lenses in it's range. Some of their other lenses are also very good, but
generalities fail. Vivitar is trickier, as they cheapened their Series 1
line after the early great ones, but some current ones are still
excellent performers. The 19-35/3.5-4.5 and 105/3.5 macro are a very
good performers and outstanding values.
Another good information resource is
<http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html>.
>That's a generality that's not always so. Later 50/1.8s and 50/1.4s are
>much sharper than the 55/1.2. The 50/1.2 is in between.
>
In the great big world of lenses, faster just means just that - faster.
In many cases, the faster lens will not be better, and often worse, in
other characteristics than a slower lens. A lot also depends on when the
lens was designed and to what quality price constraints. In the specific
case of Zuikos, all the f2 wide angle lenses and the fast long lenses
are late designs and as good as or better than the comparable focal
length older, slower lenses. This will not necessarily be generally true
of other brands.
If you don't need the speed, there is no point in paying for it. For
example, if shooting static subjects in a macro setup, the difference
between f8 on the 50/3.5 macro and the 50/2 macro is essentially zero.
>Also, there is much variation between models, and even particular
>lenses, especially after dropping them....
>
Absolutely true. A lot of these lenses are decades old and some will not
be the same as when they were made.
>>Is there a resource where I can find out who makes the best lens for
>>different type lens? Macro, Zoom, Wide Angle, etc.
>>
Threre is no such thing. You can find out which manufacturers made/make
excellent lenses in any category, but there are so many performance
factors and so many specific differences to individual tastes that
identifying a 'best' is really an impossible exercise. Simple example.
People who shoot slides are often quite concerned about the color
balance of images from their lenses. Those who shoot BW or color
negative generally don't care because the process of getting to a print
has much more effect on the final color balance than the lens. So many
have rejected otherwise fine lenses because they don't have color
balance like their other lenses and stand out as very different in slides.
It's pretty hard to go wrong with Zuiko lenses on the whole. You will
find some individuals saying that certain specific models just aren't
sharp enough - but then others that swear by the same model. How much of
that is sample and age differences and how much is different 'taste' or
definitions of sharpness is impossible to say (sharpness as we
subjectively percieve it is a mixture of several lens performance
characteristics.). Gordon Ross has been going through a process of
buying more than one of each lens, comparing them, keeping the best and
selling the rest, so he may have something to say about variability. The
only Zuikos that are generally regarded as possibly second rate are the
early versions of the 50/1.8 and 1.4 (seas of info/opinion in the
archives) and the "non Zuikos", the Cosina made 35-70/3.5-4.8 (NOT the
lovely 35-70/3.5-4.5) and 70-210/4.5-5.6 lenses that came out with the
OM2000. There are also specific problems with age in a few Zuikos, many
"MC" marked 50/1.8s develop sticky diaphrams, many 60-200/4s develop a
foggy internal element, and possibly others that don't come to mind.
On the other hand, Oly stopped developing new lenses for the OM series
without completing a whole line of modern zooms. That's a place the
Tamron SP (and some later top line Tamrons, like the wonderful
35-105/2.8 asp) and Tokina AT-X series fill in the gaps.
>>Also, I'm looking for a good lens to use on an Olympus Bellows unit to
>>copy 35mm slides and heard that a good lens is the 80mm/f4, but they're
>>very expensive. Aren't there other lenses I can use that may not be as
>>expensive and can be used with the bellows unit?
>>
>>
>
>The 50/3.5 is a good sharp standard and macro lens that is cheaper than
>the 80 and usable without the bellows I don't know how well it works
>with the slide duplicator.
>
The eSIF specifically says the 50/3.5 is suitable for use with the Slide
Copier. People looking at all the Zuikos could assume that the 50/3.5
was a cheaper, poorer alternative to the 50/2, but they were in fact
designed years apart with the 50/3.5 being the flagship macro when
designed.
Moose
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|