>
> Not really, no. It's just too big in my opinion (the tiny zuiko primes
> really suit the OM bodies best),
>
Ken Rockwell (we're twins separated at birth--our backgrounds are even
similar, his in television and cinema, mine in radio and recording, but
nearly identical otherwise) has been spouting off on this very issue in
regards to Leica lenses. I don't dispute this in the least. I have found,
however, that the zoom serves a specific purpose and trumps prime lenses in
event coverage. I used to have a Tokina AT-X 35-70/2.8 which was one
fantastic lens and used it almost exclusively for wedding and event
photography. The 35-80 is similar in weight to the Tokina, but a little
longer and a lot slimmer.
I could (and have) use two bodies, one with a wide and the other with a
tele. But for event coverage now, I'm still using two bodies--one with the
35-80 and the other with the 100-300 or 200. Between the two, I can get
anything, except really wide-angle, which the pocketed 24/2.8 is useful for.
Wondering where the digital camera is??? No where at the moment. This is my
primary configuration until further notice.
and even it still suffers from the bane of most standard zooms -
> distortion. It's a personal thing, but I will gladly give up resolving
> power for less distortion on the wide side of a lens.
Yes, and it is problematic for linear subjects. From my winter day shooting
with Joel Wilcox, there were a couple of pictures that would have been quite
satisfactory had it not been for the distortion. But I'm spoiled--the
35/shift puts distortion (or lack of) into another category.
I much rather carry around a 35/2.0, 50/1.2 and 90/2.0, have a kit
> that is not any heavier, and have much greater optical capability. But I
> can see if one cannot change lenses that the 35-80 is very very desirable.
>
For me, the jury is still out. I am enjoying the freedom of not swapping
lenses, but somehow I feel like I'm not a "real photographer" because I'm
being lazy in not swapping lenses. (get over it). When I do my next
backpacking trip I'd be awefully tempted to just carry the OM-3Ti and the
35-80. But the 35/2.8, 50/3.5 and 100/2.8 come in about the same weight, but
definitely not as compact--in total.
> But not for me. So, unlike the implications of your statement (i.e.
> remorse for not getting one for cheap in time) I do greatly respect this
> wonderful zoom lens, but I have had it with zoom lenses personally.
>
Humour only. Anybody could probably find a way to justify a 35-80 if he
really wanted one--especially since throw-away low-end digitals cost more.
BTW, I'm with you on the comparative of a stitched digital vs a massive hunk
of Velvia/Provia. If you figure than the typical enlargement for one of
these large format trannies is around 5x, if you take a 35mm slide and
enlarge it 5x you get an idea of the similarity in image quality. I'm still
not seeing digital beat Velvia/Provia at the 5X point. The tonal depth and
micro-contrast is lackluster in the digital image. Getting better, but one
must spend $45000 for a digital back.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|