Hey, welcome to the list.
_________________________________
John Hermanson
Camtech, Olympus OM Service since 1977
631-424-2121 www.zuiko.com
Call Olympus for FREE manuals!
1-800-221-3000
_________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "dreammoose" <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] just another Intro
> Hi, I'm Moose and new to this list, courtesy of a a short e-mail
> conversation with Tom Scales.
> I saw my first OM-1 soon after they came out and immediately got rid of
> my Nikon Ftn and bought a chrome, pre MD OM-1, so I'm approaching my
> 30th Oly anniversary. Shortly after the OM-2n came out, I bought a black
> one and the OM-1 became my backup. With the 50/1.8, 35-70/f3.6, 100/2.8,
> Tokina RMC 80-200 f4.0, Vivitar 28mm f2.5 and a T-32, I was a happy
> photograhper for many years. Then I found I had more time and money than
> when I was younger and wanted to get back to photography as fun and
> creative art. Then I discovered eBay and the rest is (sordid?) history.
> What I really need is a 12 step program, but I'm here instead. I don't
> think I'm in Tom's league, but.... I do have many OM bodies from the
> OM-1 that started it all through a 4Ti. And lenses!! Do I have lenses?!
> They run from 18mm to 1000mm, with way too many stops and duplicates in
> between. Maybe I'll let you know more when we know each other better -
> and I've taken an inventory and start selling off the excess.
>
> In the meantime, I'd like to reply at way too much length to:
> ---------------------------
>
> >Please don't tell me there is a 2/90 OM for sale on ebay, please.... ;)
> >
>
> There is a 50/2 macro, first in a long while. Sell those investments.
> Mortgage that Cello.
>
> tOM
>
> ---------------------------
>
> Actually, there are 2 50/2s on eBay at the moment. What I don't get is
> why it's such a big deal. For a collector, ok, but for a picture taker???
> Back in the archive, someone suggested a 135/2.8 was better for distance
> than a 135/4.5 macro... and somebody else said the equivalent of
> "Plueeeeze!!".
> I'm not immune to the "Newer, faster, more expensive is better."
> syndrome. However, there is more than that to this subject. In the
> current state of lens making, it is not possible to make a single lens
> of a given focal length and speed that is BOTH as good focused at
> infinity as a lens optimized for infinity AND is as good at 1:1 as a
> lens optimized for 1:1. In the case of Zuiko, they have a set of 'pure'
> macros optimized for close-up work with a bellows. They also have the
> two 50mm and the 90mm 'macros' with helicoid mounts that focus to
> infinity. These are obviously compromises somewhere between 'pure' macro
> and conventional lenses. I have a couple of the 50/f3.5s and a Tamron SP
> 90mm macro. (By the way, I've heard that the later version of this lens
> is optimized for a greater focal distance than the earlier one; either
> to cater to it's most common use or to get better ratings in magazine
> tests run at long focal distances.) Used on a copy stand, they do a
> superb job of preparing slides for college lectures. The questions are:
> Should I use a 50/3.5 for regular photography instead of a 50/1.4 or
> even 50/1.8. Should I buy a 50/2.0, for macro work? ..for regular
> photography?
>
> I already know the answers from many years of photography and designing
> equipment for highly specialized copy and projection work years ago, but
> I think it's also easy to show.
>
> First of all, for actual close-up work, no matter how much fast a lens
> may be wide open, it has the same depth of field at any f-stop and
> focal distance as any other lens. As a practical matter, all close up
> work tends to require small f-stops. This is obvious for small 3-D
> objects. Everyone who walks up to a flower and tries to get a good
> close-up quickly finds that a small f-stop is needed. However, it is
> also true to an important extent for copy work of flat objects. I know
> that we all think our cameras are perfect and the distance from the lens
> to the focusing screen is exactly the same as the distance to the film..
> and the film is perfectly flat... and our lenses have no curvature of
> field... and our camera is absolutely square to the copy... and our our
> can see focus perfectly after hours of work. The truth is that good copy
> work is also done at smaller apertures. So a faster lens per se dosen't
> have any advantage for macro and copy work.
>
> For work at greater focal distances, there is an enormous amount of good
> information on Gary Reese's lens test page. His tests of a flat subject
> at a 1:40 magnification ratio are excellent for judging quality for
> everyday photography. So lets look at some 50mm lenses. I've converted
> Gary's comments on contrast and vignetting into columns:
>
> 50mm f/2.0 Zuiko Macro (multi-coated) 50mm f/3.5 Zuiko
> (multi-coated) 50mm f/1.8 Zuiko ("Made in Japan" variant)
> 50mm f/1.4 Zuiko >1,100,000
> OM-2000 with mirror and aperture prefire. OM-4 with mirror and aperture
> prefire OM-2S with mirror and diaphragm prefire OM-2000 with
> mirror and diaphram prefire.
> Distortion = none Distortion =
> very slight pincushion Distortion = slight barrel
> Distortion = none
> Aper. Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper. Cent.
> Cor. Cont. Vign. Aper. Cent. Cor. Cont. Vign.
> Aper. Cent. Cor. Ctr. Cont. Cor. Cont. Vign.
>
>
> f/1.4 B
> B M ML D
> f/2 B- B- M B
> f/1.8 B C
> H C- f/2 A- B H
> H B
> f/2.8 B- B M ?
> f/2.8 A- B+
> H A- f/2.8 A A- H
> H A-
> f/4 A- A- M ? f/3.5 B-
> C MH A- f/4 A+ A VH
> A f/4 A A H
> H A
> f/5.6 A- A M ? f/5.6 A
> A MH A f/5.6 A A- VH
> A f/5.6 A A- H
> H A
> f/8 A+ A+ MH ? f/8 A+
> A H A f/8 A A- VH
> A f/8 A- A- H
> H A
> f/11 A A- MH ? f/11 A
> A MH A f/11 A- B+ H
> A f/11 A- A- H
> H A
> f/16 A- B+ M ? f/16 A-
> A- MH A f/16 B+ B H
> A f/16 B+ B+ H M
> A
>
> f/22 B+ B+ MH A
>
>
> It's easier to see the forest when the trees are lined up like this. I
> know these comparisons aren't really valid at the 1/3 grade level, but
> just for fun... I converted all the resolution grades to numbers, A+=9,
> C-=1 and the contrast grades to numbers, VH=5, ML=1. I then added up the
> two resolution scores for each f-stop for each lens and selected a
> winner based on high score. I then added the contrast scores to the
> totals. Since I use only one contrast score and the contrast numbers are
> lower, this total is still heavily resolution rated.
>
> Here are the winners based on the exercise:
> f-stop Resol. R & C
> f/1.4 f1.4 f1.4
> f/2 f1.4 f1.4
> f/2.8 f1.4 f1.4
> f/4 f1.8 f1.8 (scores of all lenses basically a tie)
> f/5.6 f3.5 f1.8
> f/8 f2.0 f2.0+f3.5
> f/11 f3.5 f3.5
> f/16 f3.5 f3.5
> f/22 f3.5 f3.5
>
> Now, some of the scores are too close to be meaningful, but I think you
> see the point, the f1.4 is the best general use lens. The question of
> best for close-up lens is not quite as clear, but based on the above
> discussion of the practical needs and especially the availability of
> f/22 for additional depth of field, I think the f3.5 is the best choice.
> Add in the large cost and availablity difference and it's no contest!
>
> Cheers,
> Moose
>
>
>
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|