1st off, let me express my deep and sincere gratitude to Gary and others
that have spent so much time documenting the differences, however subtle
they may be, between various lenses. It makes interesting reading. But let
me offer a completely contrarian view.
Now let me say why I don't think it should make a hoot to most
photographers whether their favorite lens is f2 or f2.8. Actually, let me
rephrase that a bit. I think it may well be that paying more for heavier,
faster, better coated lenses is really a ripoff for most people. I'm very
much of the lighter, smaller is better frame of mind. The only reason I
even bother with 35mm format at all is that I can carry an entirely capable
OM system in a small fanny pack. Others have mentioned why they think
paying large amounts of cash for fast lenses makes sense in terms of better
designs and better coatings. For them, I say hurrah. For the rest, I'll
attempt to debunk some misconceptions.
*Pros use fast lenses-- Name your favorite 1/2 dozen photographers of all
time. I'm betting that if you even know the type of gear they use, their
best works weren't dependent on using fast lenses gagged wide open.
*Fast lenses allow more opportunities-- How many examples are there of
really good photographs that depended on "grab" type shots where the only
solution depended on having an extra stop? Like the above example,
typically good works depend on slow deliberate actions. The world doesn't
need more snapshots.
*Faster lenses usually have better optics.-- So what? If you want better
resolution, better tonality and MUCH more pleasing enlargements, go to a
larger format. A $200-$300 antique medium format camera with f3.5 lens
beats even the best and fastest 35mm lens in real world enlargement tests.
If you're only getting 4"x6" prints made, nobody is likely to notice or
care whether you used the latest designed f2 or an older cheaper f2.8 If
you're enlarging beyond 6"x9", do yourself and your viewers a favor and use
a format larger than 35mm.
*Faster lenses often have better coatings-- Again, So What? How often do
you _really_ take photos aimed towards the sun? Better coatings offer
better glare resistance, but for anything short of quartering towards the
sun, a hood on a less coated lens works pretty well.
*Faster lenses are necessary for low light and available light situations.
-- Today's films have made that far less true than it once was.
Astrophotographers shoot in the dark without regard to nominal lens speed.
If you really want to shoot in low light, learn to develop your own film in
very weak developing solutions which will enable using film far faster than
most people realize when looking at the finished prints.
*Faster lenses offer more options and better performance.-- Not
necessarily. Considering that most lenses do best stopped down 2-3 stops,
many super fast lenses reach their peak performance before they acheive
good depth of field.
*Faster lenses are a better long term investment.-- That may be true, but
if anybody is relying on their collection of antique, obsolete OM gear to
fund their retirement, perhaps they should look into better financial
planning. ;-)
Mike's theory of OM gear-- Buy the mid-grade f2.8 lenses. They're smaller,
lighter, take 49mm filters, and you won't have to worry about their
"collectibility" which will free you to use them and use them and use them,
while others talk about their collections. ;-)
Mike Swaim--
< 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 >
|