> I think you're still mentally stuck on film. Two ISO stops above
> whatever film you might have takes care of the difference between f/2.8
> and f/5.6. The mZuiko 14-150 can be a "does most everything" lens with
> aperture priority set at f/5.6 where it is no longer variable aperture.
I'm still mentally stuck on film as well as older digital cameras that
have restrictive ISO capabilities. I would say that there is more to
this than JUST getting the exposure. Yes, we can crank the snot out of
the ISO setting and make up for the lens. But that's a rather singular
attitude towards photography.
I use the OM system lenses for a very specific reason. It's because I
like the look of the images from them. The images truely are different
and have a signature characteristic that I've learned to exploit
through the years. A portrait, taken with the 35-80/2.8, is unlike a
portrait taken with any other lens. But, if you are stopping down to
F5.6 (actually more so because the lens is ok, but not great
wide-open, so add one more stop), any goodness of how the lens renders
bokeh is lost. You do end up with some flat and lifeless shots.
There is a related to this. The DZ 14-54 Mk1 is a fantastic lens, but
has the inane ability to flatten an image in a way that it makes the
subject look like it's recessed in the picture. This only occurs at a
couple of focal-length, focus distance and aperture cross-over points.
The lens is unbelievably good at event/wedding photography, but as you
are reviewing your images on the computer, you go "yup, yup, yup,
NO!!!!, yup, yup, yup..." When you get one of those off images, it
wants to pull your eyeballs out of your head.
The Pana-Leica 14-50 lens is sharper than the 14-54 and better behaved
in the center/corner thing, but it was nearly impossible to use that
lens for quality portraits. It would flatten the image up across more
than just two focal-lengths. Zoomed in, and wide-open, the lens was
plenty sharp, but the correction was so high that it would give the
bokeh equivalent to a highly stopped-down lens. I'd do a few shots
with it, but then would go to an old OM-Z lens to make money with.
The DZ 12-60 is more like the Pana-Leica 14-50 in this regard. Most
portrait pros who have the 12-60 and 50-200 will go to the 50-200 even
for the wide-end as the rendering is so much better--even at identical
apertures.
> The WYSIWYG EVF on the EM-5 fully handles the lost brightness at
> f/5.6. The flash photography "problem" doesn't exist if you've upped
> the ISO. Flash power requirement remains the same.
In the world of equivencies, you are correct. But most of the time,
I'm scratching for every photon of light I can. I'd be tickled pink if
I could shoot ISO 800 or 1600 at F2.8 without dropping down into sub
1/15 exposures.
This year, I've been doing a little bit of work (very very little)
with the F2 lenses. The 100/2 is stunning as a portrait lens (on FF
35mm). The 28/2 is really good as my primary, close-in, lens. The
35-80 is the best portrait lens on 4/3 I've ever seen, but the 50/1.4
on either format rocks.
I have three portrait sessions booked for this fall, and all three
will be shot on film.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|