Moose wrote:
> The point I was making is that if you want a certain level of reliable
> performance, there is still no substitute for running the native
> lenses on the native matched technology.
"Absolutely! So when are you going to stop using OM lenses on digicams, and
exhort other people to stop?
In case you feel that is unfair, all I'm saying is that it depends on the user,
AND on the use. I found MF lenses on my generally Canons unrewarding. I don't
tell others they are wrong for finding it wonderful.
More directly to this specific point, as you meant it. I quite agree.
I can't see adapted lenses as particularly useful except for very limited,
special purposes. 1:1 macro lens on a bellows? MF Zuiko 80/4 Auto, hands down.
General purpose zoom? M.Zuiko 14-150."
My experience with MF lenses on the OM-D reflects this somewhat. I have nothing
longer than 50mm in native glass, so Pen F (70/2) and OM (100/2) lenses are, of
necessity, my choices. Since I now have the 45/1.8, there's no need for a fast
standard MF prime (38/1.8, 50/1.4).
MF lenses seen to work fine on the OM-D, though many are no longer really
useful. My CDFO is interested in photos where her P&S falls down - essentially,
low-light (with or without flash), UWA and longer telephotos. In the low-light
situation, many of my OM/Pen F lenses are not really appreciably better or
faster than the 12-50, once stopped down a bit (e.g., 21/3.5, 18/3.5; 25/2.8).
For long lenses, I do not expect to buy anything to replace the fast Tamrons
(180, 80-200, 300) for daylight work, so I'll have to live with these, when the
occasion demands.
I don't yet trust focussing through the EVF without magnification, especially
with lenses wide open. So, the slower focussing is obviously an issue if I'm
trying to use the MF lenses wide open with subjects that are relatively close
and moving (even if not quickly). The 45/1.8 has shown how fast native m4/3
lenses can focus - especially in low-light situations. As a result, there are a
number of fast native lenses that are attractive (e.g., 17mm, 20mm, a fast
longer zoom), but they're not, or will not be, cheap. I'm not sure I can
justify a +$1000 lens (either to myself or to the CDFO) for what I use the
camera for. I suspect that I'm still hobbled by film-era thinking and the
fixation on fast lenses.
Martin
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|