> The real reason why I didn't spring for the 35-80mm is because it's such a
> big beast. I use the OM system because I like the smaller size and
weight.
I am in 100% agreement about the size and weight issues with this lens.
However, I've learned that this lens has a certain operational sweetspot
which is part of the uniqueness of the OM system.
Yesterday, I was talking with a coworker who, like me, is a part-time
photographer (and a very good one at that) and shoots with the
latest/greatest Canon digital gear. Over the past couple of years, I've
shown him several parts of my systems, but nothing too interesting. Well,
recently, I started showing him some of the more special items and pointing
them out in a way that is completely foreign today:
The OM System was truly a "System" camera. Absolutely everything was
interchangeable (with minor exceptions, of course). It didn't matter if it
was the earliest M-1 or the latest OM-4Ti, everything worked together in a
way that it was highly tunable to the specific task at hand.
For example:
One day I showed him the OM-3Ti with just the 35/2.8 lens. Small, compact,
lightweight and seemingly simple. Another day, comes the 35-80. The OM-2S
with 50/1.4 made an appearance. Each time, he's impressed, but not
overwhelmed. Well, I've been priming him... Yesterday, he got to see the
OM-4Ti with MD2 regalia, and the T45 together. Slap, slap, slap. Each item
pops together just like it was intended from the beginning--totally mix and
match. Within seconds I had taken the camera from a simple SLR with a simple
lens to the biggest, baddest event-photography setup imaginable. Then just
as quickly, was able to break it back down to the most simple, basic and
lightweight configuration.
To say he was "shocked" and "delighted" is an understatement. Of course, the
T45 impressed him. Without any film in the camera, I needed to set the flash
manually to some "normal" strength and with the motordrive on sequence I
fired off an entire roll worth of pictures at 5fps without the flash missing
a single frame. Popped open the back to reset the motordrive and did it
again right away. two rolls without a skip. If THAT doesn't get somebody's
attention, nothing will.
So, where does the 35-80 fit in all this? The lens is heavy and big, which
is an issue for a walkabout kit, but when I NEED to photograph an event with
no-excuses coverage, the 35-80 is absolutely the best possible lens I have.
Combined with the MD2, the camera is fast, a bit heavy, but simply a joy to
use as it just gives you everything you need without compromise or delay.
I had a Tokina AT-X 35-70 F2.8 lens for many years. In fact, it remained my
ONLY OM-mount lens I ever purchased brand-new. I really liked that lens and
its performance is staggering good. But one thing I never came to grips with
was the look-and-feel of the images from that lens. It just wasn't a Zuiko.
As good as it is, the images have that sterile look you get from the more
popular camera systems. I shot many weddings and events with it, though, and
the lens performed admirably.
The Zuiko 35-80 gives images an organic look. Where the image is sharp, it
is blood-drawing sharp. Where it is soft, it is pillow-soft. No other lens
I've had has this dichotomy which results in such foreground-background
separation. Subjects you focus on have a rim-like edge around them where you
can almost reach behind them and see the other side. I've seen this with a
couple of the F2 Zuikos, but the 35-80 has it in spades.
What I am saying is that the 35-80 isn't a duplication of any other lens in
the same focal-lengths. It is an unique beast which gives imagery unlike any
other lens. It is a one-of-a-kind, of which we will probably never see the
likes again.
So, my Canonista coworker just has this silly grin on his face and chuckling
like a giggling schoolgirl. As he focuses the 35-80 at people at the office,
across the room, at computer monitors, maps, etc., he just laughs. The lens
and the viewfinder of the OM have rendered him otherwise speechless. When he
can speak, he grunts out a "wow".
I am saddened that the film era has come to a close and digital is needed
for so much of what I do. But it's cameras like the OM-2S, OM-3Ti, OM-4T
with lenses like the 35-80 which keep me pushing the film envelope for as
long and as hard as I can. As a buddy of mine says, I'm kinda that cool
uncle with the classic hot-rods. They may not be daily drivers, but you just
want to tool around in the 1971 Ford Mustang Mach 1 instead of the Toyota
Camry.
I am very appreciative of the generosity of others which has made it
possible for me to experience the greatest items in the OM system, which I
would have been otherwise unable to afford, but the 35-80 is one of those
lenses, along with the OM-3Ti, which had I known just how incredible they
really are, I would have sacrificed a lot of other things to get when they
first came out.
Just like the OM-3Ti, the 35-80 is NOT about specifications--even though the
specifications are terrific. The 35-80 is far more than just the
specifications. It has a look and feel to the images which conspire to
inspire.
AG (20,000 words and counting) Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|