Joseph Albert wrote:
> The 28-48/4 weighs 300gm, whereas a 28/2.8 + 50/1.8 together are 330gm.
> So, you'll save all of 30gm of weight, for the privilege of spending more
> money on a lens that doesn't focus nearly as closely.
Yes, but what about the 35/2.8 and 40/2 you'd need to carry to appx the range of
> Close focus is important on a wide-angle because most effective wide-angle
> shots require getting really close in to the primary foreground subject
> so it is large enough in the image.
> Of course, this calls into question whether one needs to go with the
> more expensive floating-element wide-angles that have better correction
> of close focus aberrations. My own experiences with the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8
> is that the close focus aberrations in the corners are only a problem at
> the more open apertures. So you need the f/2 versions of the lens if you
> are wanting to shoot at wide apertures. I have closeups of flowers
> taken with a 24/2.8 Zuiko where the aberrations are so severe that the
> image falls apart in the corners. This is normal with retrofocus lenses
> that aren't floating element designs. However, these were also at f/4
> and a few at f/5.6. By f/5.6, the f/2.8 24mm and 28mm lenses are fine,
> but at closest focus I'd rather be at f/8 and below.
This is true. If doing an important landscape 35mm image, I'd rather be
shooting with the 28/2 than the 28-48/4. But the zoom may be better suited to
other things: walking around, group shots, cropping an image in camera, etc.
> someone else suggested that at 11x14 and even 16x20, 35mm was as good
> as 6x7. I have to disagree here. with very careful technique and the
> finest grained film you can get results with 35mm that rival medium format,
> but you won't get it with the same consistency as with a medium format
> camera. plus, with medium format you don't have to use the finest
> grained materials that often are the most contrasty (Velvia, Ektar 25,
> Tech Pan), but rather can get the medium format look with a wider
> choice of film palettes.
I agree, mostly. In general you are right on. However, WRT specifics, I have
some landscapes with my Zuiko 50/1.2 eg that rival at 16x20 anything I ever did
with my Mamiya TLR.
> once tilt and swing movements enter into the mix, 35mm gets left in the
> dust in terms image quality for subjects that aren't close to being parallel
> to the film plane.
> j. albert
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >