James Olsen posed the query:
>>i am wondering about the quality of the wide angle prime zuikos,
>>specifically the 24, 28 and 35mm's. i recently returned from 3 months
>>in india and nepal, carrying the 24/2 and the 35/2, as well as 50/3.5
>>and 100/2.8. as i have a 50/3.5 and 100/2.8, both of which are 49mm, i
>>am considering buying a 28mm/2.8 to replace the 24 and 35 for
>>travelling. (so my outfit would be 28, 50 and 100. small and light,
>>all 49mm.)
To which R. Lee Hawkins crafted a response:
>This to me would be a mistake. While you will not notice the difference
>in quality (except at very close distances, where the close focusing
>correction mechanism in the 24/2 should result in better images), you
>will probably feel very restricted by the angle of view of a 28mm.
To which, I remark:
There are two major issues here:
1. Is an f/2.8 wide angle lens better optical quality than a f/2?
2. Is a 28 a reasonable substitute for a 35 and a 24?
This interests me, too, as the next lens I get may be a wide-angle. My
current outfit is 35/2.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2.8. I'm inclined toward a 24
rather than a 28. More on that in a moment.
The old, *general* truism is that the fastest lens is often less sharp than
its slower brother of the same length, but often reaches its maximum
quality a stop or two wider open. So if you do a lot of handheld low-light
photography, you are better off with the faster lens. It buys you faster
shutter speeds, which means sharper pictures wide-open. And an f/2 or
f/1.4 lens at f/2.8 or 4 is often sharper than the f/2.8 lens at the same
openings.
On the other hand, if you do most of your work in medium to good light,
you're probably better off with the slower lens, which is lighter, less
expensive, and probably sharper at the most commonly-used medium openings.
None of this may matter much unless you blow your pictures up really big
and take them at extreme lens openings. Keppler pointed out in a Popular
Photography column a while back that anything above 50 lines per mm is
largely theoretical, anyway--other parts of the process limit it. On the
other hand, it's still a delight to project old Kodachromes I took with a
50mm Leitz Summicron-M in the 70s. When I smell the screen, I can see the
difference. (Aside to myself--pick up a 50/1.8 Zuiko one of these days,
cf. Summicron) :-)
Theoretically, the MC vs. SC issue would apply more with the faster wides.
They have more glass-to-air surfaces to bounce light around. They have
wider views, hence more chance that a light source will find its way into
your pictures. So the faster and wider the lens, the more likely that
multi-coating will make a difference.
As to whether all this applies specifically to our esteemed Zuikos, I
defer, with great personal interest, to the people who've done objective
testing of the lenses. Or who have used both the f/2 and 2.8 of the same
length and compared the pictures. Anybody?
A question for the original questioner: Would you be contemplating the
exchange if you had a 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 instead of the f/2 lenses? You'd
save about 1/4 pound that way. Not the over 1/2 pound you'd save with just
the 28/2.8, but you'd still have the two focal lengths you know.
The 28 is a good *compromise* between the 24 and a 35, but is it a good
*substitute*? I suspect not. Each lens has a distinct personality. The
35 is wider than "normal," but doesn't really give the classic receding
"wide angle perspective" unless you deliberately set out to do so. The 24
is going to give you that perspective, like it or not, and woe be unto you
if you don't know how to control it. The 28 is kind of in-between.
Ask yourself: "Why do I use the wide-angle lenses?" If you use the 24 up
close for its elongated perspective, you are going to miss it. Terribly.
The 28 just won't cut it. If you use it for farther-away subjects, you may
be OK with the 28, especially if you know how to make a part stand for the
whole in your pictures. The entire Grand Canyon looks pretty boring in a
wide-angle shot, even if you *did* get it all in the frame. The close-up
juniper tree with the chasm yawning in the background conveys the subject
better.
When I go hiking, I often take just a 35 and a 100 (a 90 with my old Leica
IIIf). I leave the 50/1.4 at home, and rarely miss it. This is not
uncommon--some professionals have little use for a 50. But your 50 is a
macro, so you probably want it with you.
I owned a clunky Vivitar 28 with a old C*n*n SLR years ago. I really didn't
like it, and sold it after a year. I must admit a prejudice--I can't stand
all those bad news photos, obviously taken with a 28, in which the seated
subject's knees are bigger than his or her face. The 28 invites this
misuse, because it's just wide enough to fool the photographer into
thinking he or she can get sufficient information on the negative in a
small room without much thought. The 24 doesn't let you get away with not
thinking. The 35 may make you feel like you want to push the wall out with
your back, but it may force you to make a part stand for the whole.
As for the all-49mm business, the question is, how many filters do you use?
I am a firm believer in keeping a UV filter on every lens--it's cheap front
element insurance. So you should have several UVs in any case. If all you
use besides that is a polarizer, whether you have one or two is hardly
significant. If you do a lot of black-and-white and need yellow, orange,
red and green for each ring diameter, or use color correction or effect
filters a lot, that's another matter.
Your milage may vary. Offer void where prohibited. Batteries not
included. So there. :-)
----
: -----==3== --- ---
- Peter - : | | | | | | | |
: @| @| @| @| @| @| @| @|
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|