Mike, the purveyor of The Online Photographer (TOP) has been
high-horsing his thoughts about "complete" system cameras and so
forth. Basically, he set his hair on fire over the fact that Nikon has
an incomplete set of DX lenses.
Well, that got me to thinking. Ya Think?
While I understand and mostly agree with the concept of his argument,
I disagree with the specifics as Nikon does provide a relatively
complete set of lenses covering DX when you consider the FX lenses.
Honestly, why would I buy a 35mm DX lens that can only be used on a DX
camera when I can buy a 35mm FX lens that can be used on both DX and
FX cameras?
But to bring this on-topic to Olympus and the three primary systems
used by us (OM, 4/3, m43), there are certain parallels. With the
E-System, Olympus provided an almost complete coverage of all usable
focal lengths with a bare minimum of lenses. 7-14, 14-54, 50-200, 50
macro, 150mm, 300mm. There were a couple other odd ones in there too,
11-22, for example. Then came the duplicates, refinements, lower-cost
alternatives and higher-cost F2 alternatives. The E-System is as
complete of a lens system as anybody could hope for...
...as long as you like big zoom lenses.
Prime lenses? not so much. Small lenses? Hardly. Granted, there are
small and lightweight "kit" lenses that one can choose, but the fact
remains that there were almost no primes to speak of and what did
exist were not really addressing the reason to have primes.
M43 changed that and Olympus and Panasonic have done an AMAZING job of
producing zooms AND prime lenses of nearly every flavor, size and
shape. If there is any criticism its that the pro-zoom lens selection,
as presented in 4/3, was a bit late coming to m43.
The OM system is a fun comparative to all this. The OM system was
introduced and rapidly fleshed out with a "complete" system in
near-record time. We don't have just one 28mm prime lens, but at least
three different 28mm prime lenses to choose from. A person can mix and
match his/her kit to the specific desires and needs for any
application. In the short teles, you have the 85/2, 90/2, 100/2,
100/2.8, 135/2.8 and 135/3.5.
Just this week, I decided to go "retro" and shoot with the 35/2.8 and
100/2.8. I left all the ultra-nice F2 lenses at home. There are other
times when I MUST use the F2 lenses and times when only zooms will
suffice. I've got options, and I've got the ability to mix and match a
"complete system" out of a much greater "complete system".
The point I'm making is that it's less an issue of having a "complete
system" in your bag and more of an issue of being able to fine-tune
and adapt the system in your bag to the ever changing needs. Yes, this
is a departure from where I was at 15 years ago when my ENTIRE kit
comprised of a 24/2, 35/2.8, 50/3.5, 100/2.8 and 200/4. No choosing
what to take as everything I owned fit in one medium-sized bag.
Where Olympus is to be commended with the 4/3 system is that they
provided a photographer with a "complete system" with very little
overlap. Buy three lenses and have fun. Most systems, these days, can
provide full focal-length coverage with just two or three lenses. It
is nice to see m43 reach a level of maturation for the pro sector that
was a bit slow in coming.
So, while I disagree with Mike about his specific lenses, I agree with
Mike about the concept of the complete system that allows us to define
our own specific lens choices within that system.
--
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/
|