>AG swears his is one of the best lenses there is and has been
>one of his biggest money makers over the years.
I've got one MC lens (the horror) in my kit, and it ain't the
100/2.8. This lens is magical.
The 100/2.8 SC, and the 35/2.8 SC are my "forever keepers".
Long after I abandon everything Olympus, there will still be a
100/2.8, 35/2.8 and an OM body lurking in the shadows just
waiting to be used on something demanding "the look".
What is "the look"? It's an intangible, kinda like the
perceived superiority of Leica glass. But I suppose that it is
best described by an exceptional sharpness surrounded by a
slight penumbra glow. This "double-imaging" allows a bleading
of the highlights into the surrounding regions which appears to
soften the image without affecting sharpness. Several of us
have discussed whether or not the lens is performing some type
of USM on the resulting image. Imagine--a lens with it's own
built-in USM filter. (science may or may not prove this out).
Anyway, this double-imaging also contributes to the optical
illusion of three-dimensionality. Portraits appear 3D.
Have I seen "the look" with other Zuikos or other 100/2.8s?
Well, let me put this in perspective: "The Look" fades or
disappears if I put ANY filters of ANY kind on the lens. Even a
lowly skylight or UV filter will minimize it. I've found ONE
skylight that works pretty well. "The Look" is also pretty
dependent upon film selection. Fujichrome Velvia and Provia are
best, followed by Kodak Portra NC. Ilford PanF and Delta 400
work best in BW. I suspect it has to do with the way these
films capture near-IR or UV. One other person on this list has
discovered this strange, but very pleasing personality trait in
his 100/2.8, and the serial number is very, very close to mine.
(13061x) Must have been a "defective" manufacturing run.
The only other camera system that I've scene anything similar is
the Contax 645AF. If you look at the way the lenses handle
pinpoint lights in the image, you will see an identical halo
with my 100/2.8 and the Contax's standard lens. Most lenses
will produce a halo, but how does it vary between colors and at
what intensities? A spectral analysis might reveal some
secrets.
It begs the question of WHY is this particular sample so
unusual? I've tried other 100/2.8s without seeing it. The
later MC versions definitely don't have it. Later versions
appear to be sharper lenses edge-to-edge, but mine is sharper in
the center. (This is a common trait between nearly all SC vs MC
Zuikos). I do know that the coatings are unusual in that they
are not traditional SC, but have all but the green reflections.
I think Olympus must have either farmed this series out to the
Wyoming factory or slipstreamed in some incremental improvements
which were later "fixed". Maybe, the lens has an experimental
ED glass or something. For all I know, they accidently reversed
a lens element.
You can vaguely, kinda-sorta, mimick "the look" by doing an
in-camera double-exposure. Make the first exposure sharp as a
tack and 1/3 stop underexposed. Make your second exposure out
of focus and wide-open but about two-stops under-exposed.
Hopefully, if your alignment is good, you'll see it happen.
BTW, this double-exposure technique works extremely well on
adjacent colors (yellow flowers on green background). If that's
too harsh, don't underexpose the first exposure and put the
second, out of focus exposure, three or four-stops down. (ND
filters may be needed).
Did I mention "bokeh"? I'm looking at an 8x10 right now of a
picture I took about a dozen years ago of a mountain laural.
There are three groups of blossums in the photo, with the lens
focused on the closest. The brightness DECREASES on the blossums
farther away. Therefore, the bokeh is causing a spreading of
the light which lowers the intensity of the OOF highlights.
Most lenses do this, but HOW they do it is what makes the
difference. The feathered bokeh of my 100/2.8 and 35/2.8 is
like the smudges of a high-quality charcoal drawing vs the
blobbyness of a paint-by-number watercolor.
And yes, this lens has earned me at least an additional $200
just this week. This is reprint revenue directly attributal to
the special characteristics of this lens. You can hear the
client looking over the proof-book "nice picture, nice picture,
nice picture, WOW! Now that's a picture!" For senior pictures,
I can almost always get an additional $50-100 worth of business
if I shoot everything with the 35/2.8 and the 100/2.8. Part of
it is me, my own comfort with the lenses, but part of it is the
lenses themselves.
Whatever it is, it is extremely unusual. No other lens I've
ever used or "trick of the trade" has been able to duplicate
this entirely. I rack it up to being an oddity. (me and the
lens).
Oh, and on resolution test charts, the lens is respectable--down
to the film's limits respectable. Resolution falls apart at the
point where lateral bleed of dmax into the neighboring emulsion
happens respectable. Count eyelashes (even the fine white ones)
and see the edges of contact lenses in half-length portraits
respectable. Clearly capture the cleaning marks in people's
glasses respectable...
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.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 >
|