On 3/19/2012 3:49 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> I must say, scanning some of these old images, the resolving power and
>> crisp contrast of this lens is truly impressive (almost 40 years old!).
> Which brings up a mid-life crisis kinda question:
>
> In a few short years, the OM system will be pushing 50 years old. Will
> I just be some geezer grayhair curmudgeon type using this obsolete
> equipment or will it be recognized as sought-after and cool?
It will only become cool after you have some sort of obsessive crisis and dump
all your OM stuff.
Otherwise, not. ;-)
> Thinking back over any 40 year period of time since the dawn of
> photography, and I can't think of any point where 40-year old lenses
> held their own against the latest/greatest. Newer lenses offer many
> advantages, but when it comes to the thrill of high-end image making,
> I think that the '70s and '80s reached the pinnacle of lens design.
> I'm not saying that newer lenses aren't as good, but what I am saying
> is that many of the lenses from that era can hold their own in any
> fight.
I agree that many wonderful lenses from that era are still at or near the top
of their game.
OTH, there is nothing from that era that can touch the Tamron 28-300 @ 300 mm
for nature macros.
"Only" goes to 1:3, but that's at the long end, so the reach/stand off distance
is great. On a high pixel count digicam,
cropping a isn't a problem. Assuming one magnifies the frame to the same
display size, on a 1.6x sensor, it's the eq. of
1:1.87, slightly better than the 1:2 of many macro lenses.
Very sharp in the center @ 300 mm, closest focus. None of the many, many such
shots I've taken has suffered from corner
issues, because of the nature of the subjects. I assume it's got softness
and/or field curvature there, but I've never
seen them.
Bokeh comes and goes over the vast zoom range and subject/object distance, but
is usually beautiful in macros.
It's horses for courses, and contemporary lenses have added some capabilities
the old lenses didn't have. Shooting
something flat @ 1:4 to 1:2? Nothing better than the 50/3.5. Shooting a small
flower with bug on it in the field? The
50/3.5 will be way too close, probably scare the bug away - and the bokeh will
be somewhere between bad and awful. I
recall some macro shots in the garden with the 50/3.5 - subject beautifully
captured a couple of inches from the lens,
background many feet away as sharp as broken glass. Never again.
The 135/4.5 on 65-116 tube is much better, but still awkward on the move, and
has to be switched with other lenses for
anything else.
Zoom Macro Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|