(Snip)
--- "John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> IMHO, much more ado about SC versus MC is made than
> the benefit provided by
> an MC lens. There are aspects of the lens design
> that have a much greater
> effect on contrast and flare resistance than going
> from SC to MC.
>
> -- John
That is very true. A zoom lens will almost invariably
have greater flare than a prime, even if the Zoom is
MC and the prime is SC. A greater number of elements
means a lot more surfaces to cause flare. Also to save
costs most interior elements are SC or not coated I
think because the gain is too incremental to justify
the enormous cost of MC each element. A proper
lenshood is always a good idea when shooting in bright
conditions. Flare is not a bad thing all the time
either. I have taken some great shots where I think
the flare adds... well... more flare to the picture
;-)
One thing to consider is that I think single coated
and especially silvernosed Zuikos have a much more
distinctive personality to each one. My mom has a
35/2.8 silvernose that has an enormous amount of flare
to it. She has used that lens to create beautiful
dreamy shots of landscapes and group people shots in
bright sun. I have tried a MC 35/2 lens (I don't own
it) that took much better shots technically, but to my
eye they are very flat and somewhat boring. Many of
the shots are of similar nature, but they have much
less pizazz to them. I am not advocating flare in many
circumastances. My mom only uses the 35/2.8 in bright
sun when she wants the flare or in dim lighting where
it doesn't matter. Just that SC lenses have their
advantages at times.
Mark Lloyd
Mark Lloyd
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|