When I first got my 5D some 6 (?) years ago I started off with a new
Tokina AT-X Pro 28-80/2.8 and soon after added a used Tokina AT-X Pro
80-200/2.8. The two Tokinas are heavyweight tanks but I needed them at
the time to be able to focus reliably in the dim light of wedding
reception halls, etc. I had assumed that I could use my OM mount lenses
for lighter weight walk-around use but they just proved too difficult to
focus. (this was before the advent of cheap and reliable AF detect
converters) But I did get a fair amount of usage out of the Zuiko
24/2.8 for landscapes since, at f/11, I could focus it using only the
focusing scale set for hyperfocal distance.
The two Tokinas are good lenses but even the 28-80 is just too heavy for
frequent use. Then I found a good deal on ebay for a Tamron 24-135
3.5-5.6 which is now my standard walk-around lens. That reduced the
usage of the 24/2.8 but didn't eliminate it. Then my next ebay deal was
a Tamron 20-40/2.7-3.5. That can also be a walk-around lens depending
on the territory and being wider than the Zuiko 24 pretty much
eliminated it from further usage. The 20-40's only bad characteristic
is bad flare on the wide end anywhere near the sun. One must use it
cautiously. Both of the Tamrons are film era AF lenses but seem to do
just fine except that none of these 4 lenses focuses with the speed of a
Canon.
That leaves the Tokina 17/3.5, and Zuiko 50/3.5 and Vivitar S1 90/2.5
macros as lenses that have no AF counterpart in my lens stable. All of
this is just pointing out that lenses designed for the purpose are just
plain easier to use.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/4/2012 7:30 AM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012, at 07:58 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
>> When I moved from film to digital in 2004, I had several Leica R lenses.
>> Over the years, I attempted to use them on a succession of Canon and
>> Olympus bodies. I even replaced the focusing screen on one of the Canon
>> bodies to make manual focusing easier. Invariably, I found that cameras
>> work best with lenses designed for those cameras. Adapters etc. are
>> always a kludge, sometimes better executed than others, but a kludge
>> nonetheless. These days I only shoot manual focus lenses on my Leica M8,
>> a camera that was designed for that.
>
> When I acquired a 5D, I feared this and, more or less, expected it. I
> have some interest from time to time in getting some proper glass for
> it, but so far the only thing I really want to do with it is shoot with
> Zuikos and the occasional Nikkor. However, I am not a street
> photographer. When I know that I will need AF and speed, I use a
> different camera. I don't doubt that what you say is correct, both for
> you personally and in the larger sense objectively, but if you want FF
> digital and enjoy a film-like, manual workflow, the OM-5D is very nice
> indeed, particularly with the EMF chipped adapters and/or aftermarket
> focus screens.
>
> I think the temptation would rise considerably were it a mkII or mkIII.
> The 5D seems perfect for what I want to do.
>
> A kludge is also a bridge. My life is chock full of such things. Dumb
> yankee, I guess.
>
> Joel W.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|