Andrew Fildes wrote:
>Why on earth would anyone bother to buy an interchangeable lens
>camera and then put a 10X zoom on it - seems pointless somehow.
>
I didn't reply to this at the time. Partly because I saw it as normal
curmudgeony. Partly because I wasn't interested in the on-topic ZD
18-180. but now that Oly may finally have produced a DSLR that interests
me, the question whether they have the lenses I would want arises.
Some personal answers to you question, in no particular order:
1. For fun!
2. To increase that probability that I will carry and use it on trips
and treks.
3. To increase the probability that I will get those shots that won't
wait for a lens change. I've made a lot of shots I really value with my
10.7x zoom that I wouldn't have made without it. One example I've posted
before <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/FilmvsDigi/FvD03.htm>.
4. Because the useful range of focal lengths for general photography,
stated in 35mm eqs., is about 12-1200 mm. Covering any reasonable
proportion of that without zooms is generally impractical. The longer
the zoom ranges, the more can be covered with a reasonable size/weight kit.
5. Because I often find myself in beautiful places with companions,
often including those who are responsible for my being in the places,
who are more interested in experiencing the places in relationship than
in photographing them. Oddly enough, the human interaction part of these
adventures is of considerable importance to me too. So photo equipment
that facilitates combining both facets of the trip is important to me.
6 Because it's like a 5x zoom with a telextender that you don't have to
bother putting on and taking off. You get an 18-90/3.5-4.5 with a
built-in 2x telextender that defies the laws of optics by doubling fl
while only dropping one stop instead of two.
Well, you get the idea. So suppose you could get a body with noiseless
iso 3200 and a 10+x zoom that is WAY cheaper, smaller and lighter than a
fast 3-4x zoom AND had equal optical performance. In other words, is you
attitude based on some ascetic vision of the true, serious photographer
who only creates his art the hard way? Or is it based on assumptions
about the performance and utility of current long zoom range lenses?
I'll bet your basic assumptions are first, that they perform too poorly
to by really useful and second, that they are too slow to be very useful
anyway. And there is where we differ. None of the reasons given above
would carry any weight with me if the zoom didn't perform. And the thing
is, the one I use does. That gives me reason to hope that there are
others, maybe even the ZD 18-180.
>Recently I used a Nikon D200 with an similar lens (what was it? -
>18-200mm VR?) So it had image stabilisation and ultrazoom status. I
>wish they'd lent me a 50mm instead, to get some real appreciation of
>the camera's capability! Long zoom - soft, especially at the long
>end. How could it be otherwise. I've just played with half-a-dozen 10
>and 12X EVF's like the Canon S2 IS (recommended) and they are ALL a
>bit soft. Got the best shots by far in the 40-100mm range, esp.
>portraits.
>
>
And yet... There is at least one "ultrazoom" that is not soft. PopPhoto
gave the predecessor to my version very high marks, and I believe the Di
I have is better
<http://www.popphoto.com/pdfs/2002/1002/lenstests/tamron28.pdf>. You've
of course seen these before
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Tam28-300/>. Certainly the full
pixel insets in the 300mm shots seem sharp in both center and fairly far
out toward the edge to me.
The speed question is more dependent on the body than just the lens
alone. Certainly the 28-300/3.5-6.3 has proved bright enough for me
through the viewfinder. The tougher aperture speed related question is
AF performance. With the 300D, I've found it to be fine except in the
combination of normal room light, long end of the zoom and low contrast
subject. In other situations, the only focus issue is the same as with
all AF lenses, did I get it to lock on the right thing. Otherwise, it
just does the job.
So if the overall performance of the ZD 18-180 on the E-330 is up to the
combo I have, it's very attractive to me. The problem is how to find
out. I've sampled quite a number of sample shots and "tests" posted in
various places. Unfortunately, the quality of the shots and/or
interpretation is pretty poor. It's easy enough to ignore the folks who
view a small, fuzzy JPEG and are in such awe of it that they immediately
sell their existing lenses and buy the 18-180.
Tougher are the shots with soft corners where the camera either clearly
is or may be not square to the subject and those where the subject
distances in the corners are different than in the center, and often
enough, from each other. So someone says the lens is soft in the
corners, sometimes even with some idea of what fl range they are talking
about - then posts a couple of shots where DOF is such that the corners
are going to be soft no matter how good the lens. Ugh!
I found the sample/tests quite frustrating and began to question my own
opinions of my Tamron. So I went through my files to find examples at
the extremes of the fl range and in the middle and did some pixel
peeping. Well, yeah, it's a bit softer at the edges, perhaps a bit more
so at the wide end, although the lack of careful replication at
different apertures makes it hard to be sure. But the difference between
corner and edge is quite small. Even in the close focus range, this
seems to be true.
I found one set of 3 shots of the same close-up of grass with fallen
leaves at different apertures. A casual look at the widest aperture shot
might lead one to say it has soft corners. closer attention reveals that
I was not quite square to the subject AND focus was just slightly off.
Leaves that stick up from the ideal focal plane are slightly sharper
than in the next shot. So what is happening is that the upper corners
are indeed a bit soft, but as a result of insufficient DOF. The lower
corners are fine. with a smaller aperture, DOF takes over and the
corners are all fine.
So after all that, what about the ZD? Even allowing for poor technique,
there are enough question about it's performance to give me pause. It's
well within the realm of possibility that is really is too soft in the
corners, at least opened up. One of the key features of the Tamron is
that it does not have to be stopped down at the long end for top
results. And several folks have commented on focus hunting at the long
end. Now I already have that opinion of the E-1, which is mostly what
they were using it on, even with faster lenses. So maybe it will be fine
with the E-330 and eventual E-x
Confusion reigns in the mind of the Moose, not a very big place to reign
over, though.
>Stabilisation? Fine for available dark portraits but - what about
>subject movement? You get lulled into a sense that you'll get the
>shot and find that what you get is a blurry mess because the child/
>horse/tortoise was moving. You think that you can shoot a 300mm
>effective at 1/30sec - only if the subject is a bloody rock! At that
>length, you have to take great care of what you are doing or else -
>
Heartily agree! IS is simply not a solution nearly as good as lens and
sensor speed. Higher shutter speeds are the specific for both kinds of
movement. It also adds cost, size and weight, especially in lenses.
>and zooming way up there because you can is a recipe for disappointment
>
>
And here I disagree. Sure you have to take some care, but it often works
for me. The 300 mm (480 mm 35mm eq/) shot of the lake and islands above
was made on an overcast day, standing up on the edge of a cliff and in a
fair breeze, handheld. Clammer shot also handheld, bu calmer
circumstances. The vulture shot was almost pure reflex. Bird comes up
from behind as I am shooting something else. I zoom out to max while
raising the camera and push the button as soon as the bird in in the
viewfinder. No care/preparation. Would it be sharper if I hung a stuffed
bird on fishing line and shot with a prime on a tripod? Probably, but it
just wouldn't be the same shot. And I couldn't see the bird looking back
at me. Would it be sharper with a faster 28-115 zoom? Maybe, but what's
the point by the time I crop it?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|