Funny, but these two have been my workhorse lenses as well. Yes, I love my
21/2 for what it does when I NEED it, and sometimes even when I don't need it I
go to it to force my vision, to move me to seeing differently, explore, etc.
But if someone were to tell me I could only have two Zuikos, those would be the
ones I would choose. (Though I would whine bitterly about not having my miJ.)
I currently have two of each. One of each needs CLA, which they will get. Not
because I couldn't acquire them in better condition more cheaply, but because
they are the oldest of my Zuiko friends.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 9/11/2004 at 8:09 AM AG Schnozz wrote:
>Since January of 1986 I have shot over half of my pictures with
>two lenses: 100/2.8 and 35/2.8. These two lenses give the
>pictures a look and feel that I have never been able to recreate
>with ANY other lens.
>
>I know that these two lenses aren't the only ones in the world
>with good Bokeh, but they have an unique Bokeh that isn't even
>matched by other Zuikos. When looking through the viewfinder of
>my OM, the scene just doesn't look right unless my special
>lenses are in use. Other focal lengths are necessary for
>framing, but I always want to gravitate to these two lenses.
>
>The results speak for themselves. The lenses (and viewfinder
>image) contribute to a style. I've altered what I shoot and how
>I shoot it based on the lenses. Is this a case of form follows
>function? Or is it function follows form?
>
>I try to ween myself from the Zuikos. I know that I have to get
>a new DSLR. Logic says that the new lenses are "better" for
>digital than the old lenses and the specifications prove that
>out when looking at resolution charts or studying the chromatic
>aberations.
>
>I'm torn over this. The APS format (and it's many variations
>including 4/3) alters apparant focal length. Unfortunately a
>focal length is a focal length is a focal length. The smaller
>sensor just "crops" the image but doesn't alter the optical
>properties of the lens.
>
>I like the 3-dimensionality of my two Zuikos. The Bokeh is
>creamy and has a variable penumbra based on distance from
>critical focus. The penumbra even fades. Modern lens
>designs--especially the zooms and "digital" lenses with parallel
>rear-exit characteristics do not generate the same type of
>Bokeh. Objects out of focus actually are "multiple-imaged" which
>creates a sense of Bokeh, but with a harsh penumbra and poor
>fade characteristics.
>
>Modern lenses are crisp and sharp and even have a deeper
>"in-focus band" than old designs. This translates well for
>deep-focus pictures, landscapes and general-purpose photography.
>Many of these even do pretty well in Macro because of the
>increased apparent DOF.
>
>But, I will admit. I'm an artist. There is something unique to
>the look and feel of my pictures that isn't captured with other
>lenses. The closest I've ever found is the Contax 645 system,
>but I've got to sell my house to fund that system.
>
>I think that we've forgotten that the "camera" is just a device
>to capture the image. The image is generated by light,
>reflected light and transmitted light. Transmitting the light is
>the function of the lens. The best sensor/camera in the world
>will not work unless a lens of some form (even pinhole) is stuck
>infront of it.
>
>AG
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|