>
> A few years ago I would have also been upset at missing such a lens, in
> fact I was more than once ;-) now though I realise that I would never
> use it, I have enough primes for my OM system, its zoom range is rather
> limited and however nice it is supposed to be, in practice I would use
> my digital zooms in preference on my E-3. I am not saying I wouldn't
> snap one up if it fell into my hands just that now I wouldn't actively
> look for one.
> --
>
I believe it really has to do with what the primary purpose of the lens is.
Honestly, if I had my druthers, I'd probably glue the 35/2.8 to an OM body
and use only that. I seriously doubt that I could ever exhaust the
photographic possibilities with just that one lens.
But for event and wedding photography, the 35-80 is quite buff. The fact
that it's a zoom means a lot--it's near impossible to shoot events/weddings
without zooms unless you strangle yourself with three camera bodies hanging
around your neck. The lens has gobs of distortion, but as long as you're not
photographing straight lines, it's terrific. Not the fault of the 35-80, as
all zooms have visible distortion. The bokeh characteristics are a bit
different than what you normally expect from this focal-length range and the
images have a bit of medium-format look to them in how it deals with
foreground/background pictures. It really is a pleasure when photographing
people and except for the 35mm end, it "snaps" into focus. (35mm focal
length and 2-series focus screens do not play well with each other)
Is it possible that the other branded lenses in this universal focal-length
range are sharper or just as good for much less money? Absolutely!
However, I am a proponant of sticking with one brand or even with one series
within a brand (silvernoses anyone?). The reason for this is uniformity of
colorcasts and the design of the diaphram blades. I vastly dislike the star
patterns of Tokinas, for example.
How about a specific example of what I'm talking about: Photographers who
shot Velvia with Nikkors usually felt the need to use warming filters of
some form as the lenses trend towards the cool side. However, with the
silvernosed zuikos, I got the same results natively. Every Tokina lens I've
had or used also trended cool.
Maybe it doesn't matter to a photographer who has a digital workflow (once
digitized, an image is an image is an image and Photoshop cures everything).
But if a photographer is attempting to fine-tune for an analog process
(darkroom printing) or a maximization of a slide or negative for scanning it
can mean the difference between doing a straight scan and having to heavily
adjust curves on each and every image. For those shooting only digitally,
it means the difference between having all images from a location match each
other vs. having to apply a different profile for each lens used.
I ran across this in a huge way about 12 years ago when I was hired to
photograph a fancy house. The majority of images were taken with the
35/shift and 24/2.8. However, there were some shots I used the Tokina
35-70/2.8 ATX. Exact same location, same roll of film. You had to pick and
choose which colors to match. The lab could get the wall colors to match,
but then the fabric or shadows went off. It's not that either image was
"wrong", it's that they were different and this goes way beyond WB--it's
actually an extremely complex color and contrast shifting.
In the absence of other lenses, who cares. Any lens will be just fine. But
if you do any mixing and matching of images from a given
location--especially if color accuracy or consistancy is required, I'd stick
with a single brand or series within a brand as much as possible.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|