Hi Ken, C.H. and all,
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>If I were to treat myself to one really special lens, kinda as an
>award to myself and as an OM silver anniversary gift what would you
>recommend?
>
>1. 90mm F2 macro
I borrowed one of these a while ago... as already said, this is always sharp
(even wide open) but never clinical -- beautiful rendering with great
technical performance. It has a marked transition between the in-focus,
razor-sharp zone, and the silky smooth OOF areas, acocunting for a
remarkable 3D effect.
Cons? Besides price, I find its ergonomics awful -- too large and with the
aperture ring at the 'wrong' place... kinda defeats the whole OM-system
purpose. Surprisingly, the 100/2 (see below) dimensions are almost an exact
copy, but that one feels much nicer in the hand.
>2. 100mm F2 telephoto
Another loan, just trying it, the first (technical) tests have been a bit...
disappointing. Don't get me wrong, this is a great nice lens, but I was
expecting some 'quantum leap' over the much smaller 85/2. It does have much
more contrast wide open, but (as Moose said in another thread) it can
beeasilycorrected . The 100/2 also suffers from CA -- longitudinal
type, the one
that _can't_ be corrected in post... and at f/4 and beyond, I find little
difference between it and my silvernosed 100/2.8. Of course, if you _need_
f/2, the 2.8 is infinitely worse :-)
Having into account optical performance, speed and size/weight, I still
prefer the 85/2 over the 100/2 and 100/2.8 -- unless you need high
contrast/sharpness wide-open with _no_ postprocessing (e.g. slide
projection)
>3. 35mm F2
I know I'm gonna be flamed by this...
This was my first and only Zuiko for many years, but I just don't like it --
almost unuseable wideopen (esp. at corners, center is not _that_ bad
although very low contrast) had to stop it down to 2.8 in order to focus on
the OM-4 + 1-4 screen. But what I really dislike is the rendering style...
Mine was a slivernosed MC, and also tried a late 'Zuiko' (marked '35mm 1:2',
instead of '1:2 f=35mm') with equally disgusting results. Sorry!
BTW, the 2.8 version adds nothing... somewhat easier to focus lacking the
f/2 setting and the compact 50/1.8 form factor (the f/2 is too much
front-heavy) but no technical / aesthetical improvement at all, IMHO. For
35mm Zuiko, I eventually settled for the lightweight 35-70/3.5-4.5.
>4. 28mm F2
I had a late, minty unit (the very first item I received from That Auction
Site) and was very happy with it -- what the 35/2 should have been in the
first place, I thought. But its use decreased badly, so I sold it... now I
own a battered silvernosed copy with a broken close focus correction
mechanism :-(
Speaking about the 28mm zuikos... the 2.8 version is good, but nowhere as
good as _my_ G.Zuiko 28/3.5 -- second only in my SLR experience to the
_outstanding_ Yashica ML 28/2.8. At least, that's how my particular unit
performs -- watch for some sample variation, I have tried four of these.
>Oh, and one other thing... Is it OK for me to think about black-nosed
lenses?
Sure, no problem! Since you'll be already hating me because of my disdain on
the 35/2.8 and 100/2.8, here's one pic in order to redeem all of my sins: <
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/5494974695/> ;-)
From: "C.H.Ling" <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>I would recommend the 90/2 or 180/2.8 both have very nice color/tone
quality.
Another vote for the 180/2.8... despite the usual criticism (CA), with a bit
of postprocessing it can be improved enormously: <
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/5417248668/>
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|