On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's one of the big differences between the digital age and film on this
> list - we hardly speak about lenses.
>
> Remember when threads about particular lenses and how they compare to
> other lenses would go on hot and heavy for days -
> or weeks?
>
I guess you did say "hardly." (The 90/2 has come to mind.)
An announcement of a new Zuiko macro lens would elicit a flurry of posts.
> Oly announced the µ4/3 60/2.8, stating that it
> is as good as the ZD 50/2. I don't recall it even being mentioned here. I
> only became aware of it wandering about the web.
>
> Anybody know about its unique hood?
>
> I post an image from it, with 100% crop, and comparisons with other M.Z
> lenses, and get one response (Thanks, Chuck!):
>
You're possibly thinking that everyone on list shoots m4/3. What sort of
response were you expecting? I have nothing to put it on, whereas I have a
DZ 50/2 to which your lens is compared favorably. Not likely to be a lens
I will ever even consider if I save enough egg money for an EM-1, but I
will still be keen to see your images (not so much the ones of the lens as
those from the lens).
I will say, as I have said before, that it tickles me that you, Paul,
Chuck, and others are enjoying the EM-5. I can't keep saying that over and
over, but it makes for enjoyable reading and viewing, and it is immensely
influential. And now we have Fujis and Leicas too. The list is exciting
as a result, at times, and it all keeps Ken flapping like a sheet in the
wind, which is lots of fun.
I think we could add some life by attempting to establish, through hot
rhetoric, whether the X-100 beats the current bunch of Olympus m4/3s, but
the illusion of permanence of any flagship is so penetrable, as new
iterations are marched out so quickly, and the results so close as not to
be meaningful in terms of the web images by which any differences would be
judged. It's like trying to buy a vacuum cleaner by means of "Consumer
Reports" -- fine if you just buy from the latest tests, but complete chaos
if you attempt to blend ratings over several years. The folks who tend to
buy new things tend to buy more new things so that those of us hoping for
some consensus to form up among people we feel we "know" are rarely able to
gather up much data except about buying habits. People make their
decisions to buy mainly on information they seem to be getting somewhere
else, and is that information better than a "Consumer Reports" lotto? I
don't know.
Back in the day, a new Zuiko -- that was definitely news: I think I joined
the last well after the last new Zuiko came out, and there were discussions
at the time whether the 35-105 or the 90/2 were really Zuikos in essence
because of some odd, non-Zuiko-like physical characteristics of those
lenses. The list was illuminated by folks aspiring to write up FAQ entries,
gather eSIFs, and conduct their own lens tests with ratings. Men were men
back then, and that doesn't even touch upon the concept of Doris.
But now the list is a bit like a Flickr forum for folks who still prefer
email lists. The world has changed, and some things may perhaps have been
forgotten that should not have been forgotten (but it was ever thus,
according to my old gaffer).
I agree with Chuck's comment BTW. If I don't have anything different to
add, I usually don't "me too." I guess I could qualify it by saying that I
enjoyed the basic test image quite a lot, but I don't think that was
essentially about the lens per se.
Joel (aka Sam the Gardener) 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/
|