Thank you, Phillip, for breaking in here...
> I agree with Doris that there is no one perfect lens for every
> occasion nor is there one perfect film or format.
Amen to that. Even the idea of an "ideal" lens for everyone is
counterproductive.
> So that said, I think the lowly
> 75-150 demands a little more respect from us Zuiks (be us Democrates or
> Republicans or other). I know many simply fantastic fashion and
> portrait photographers are using some old Planar and Sonnar lens on
> their Hassies that don't have the lastest and greatest coatings.
There are several reasons for this. For example, I find when using
SC lenses outdoors that the bit of flare you get serves in effect
to pre-flash shadows, and these effects in subtle form also help
to give an illusion of volume one simply cannot get any other way.
Adding a little diffusion isn't even close. There are other reasons as
well. For example, some lenses tend to emphasize line and textures,
while others allow color to come to the fore over the former.
You may also be facing extremes of lighting. I find that a low-contrast
lens is very useful in very hard lighting.
> So once we find the
> right combination of lens, film, and light (all under our control) we
> can get the consistant results that pros demand.
It's not just for the pros, though. Amateurs too can readily benefit
from studying carefully how their optics (and all other choices one makes)
serve their vision and needs.
> Now back to the political discussion. Also please note any remarks not
> considered accurate aabout the history of microcomputer operating
> systems or history of microsoft will get a response. I sometimes like OT
> comments too ...just pleeeeez no SUV threads.
Hey, a "few comments" wouldn't merit a blink from me, but this is
beginning to look like a sci-fi time-loop from Crossfire. :-/
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|