Something odd happened last week. Apparently under the control of some internal
process over which I have little
conscious control (Previously undiagnosed GAS?), I now have one of these cute
little thingies.
I can think of logical reasons. Much as I love the zooms, and the E-M5s high
ISO performance, I've been carrying a
50/1.4 around on most trips as a 'just in case it's really dark' lens. But I've
also discovered that 100mm eq. really
isn't ideal for many/most indoor, existing darkness shots.
But I still haven't figured out what to do with it in the meantime ... :-)
On 1/20/2013 8:15 AM, Paul Braun wrote:
> I have noticed over the past couple of weeks that when I use the 20/1.7
> wide open, that little sucker has a really, really shallow DOF.
I sort of thought that was one of the points of a fast prime, no? Also a major
reason I am mostly happy to use slower
lenses, like the µ4/3 zooms. Sounds like you want what I want, fast, but with
lots of DOF. Physics says no, at least
until one of the completely different image forming designs pans out for our
sort of use.
> It's caught me out more than once - I'm starting to get a handle on it, but
> when
> I had to crank it open because of low light, I have to be extremely careful
> where my focus point is....
Nothing new there. It is the same with fast lenses for 35mm. Both Tina and
Dawid, among list lovers of fast lenses with
shallow DOF, have had their share of slightly missed* focal plane placement on
images they have shown. Imagine what the
outtakes may be like! ;-)
Bracket focus when you can, stop down when you want more DOF, otherwise,
practice and hope for the best.
> Otherwise, I'm really liking that lens.
Well, it is certainly small and light, and sorta cute. Size is useful for
finding a place in the bag for it. I've never
been a WA and in your face street shooter, so this aspect that appeals to those
folks doesn't mean anything to me.
Time for some Dawid style images? ;-)
Have you run into any flare problems? Panny doesn't even make a hood for it.
There are a couple of similar designs of
metal hood Leica lookalikes all over the place, as well as a few rubber
designs. Many are designed for WA, which this
lens isn't, @ 40 mm eq., so I don't see any point in them.
I'm a little concerned, as I can't tell if any are of small enough outer
diameter at the base, just above their mounting
threads. The front of the lens retracts slightly behind the surrounding bezel
when turned off. Thus, the manual says:
"Accessories other than filters, such as conversion lenses or adaptors [sic],
cannot be mounted on this lens. It may
interfere with the focus operation or damage the lens."
So, mounting just any old 46mm screw-in hood, and some other ideas I found on
the web, could damage the lens.
I've seen in more than one place on the web that the B&W rubber hood (for
normal lenses, not WA) doesn't vignette on
this lens and collapses nicely for storage. I've ordered an $8, 9 condition,
used one and a $2 used 46 mm filter.
If the hood interferes with the lens collapsing fully, I plan to take the glass
out of the filter and use it as a
spacer. If that results in vignetting, hey, it's rubber. :-)
Hooded Moose
* At least in view of this opinionated 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/
|