I'm sure I should know this one already from reading the list, but every so
often I'll see someone's photos and wonder -- what's the advantage of the
'big glass' lenses again?
I see why a 350/2.8 is so expensive, certainly, but given that most of the
shots taken with them seem to be at f/8 or f/11, is it really worth the
money? You gain ease of focussing because the DOF is smaller there, and a
brighter viewfinder, but that seems fairly small improvements for the many
many thousands more dollars they cost. Is there other things you gain that
I'm not thinking of -- are the images from a 350/2.8 at f8 better than those
from a 300/4.5 at f8?
Or is it that people use these in low light / high speeds more often than I
think they do? Or something else again?
-- dan
If you always shoot on a tripod I don't think it makes much
difference, although even on a tripod the 2.8 is probably sharper and
better corrected. Whether the difference is noticeable I don't know.
If you are "on safari" or the like when you might handhold, the
aperture gets gobbled up fast. Suppose you are using Velvia for
maximum sharpness and the contrast that will be nice to combat the
atmospheric softening of large distances. Sunny 16 will give you f16
at 1/50sec. But if you handhold you need to set the speed at least
to one over the focal length to reduce movement of the camera. So
1/500 sec gets you f5.6. Not much depth of field but OK. But your
lion(or bird) is finished eating in the sun and walks into the open
shade. Oops, f2.8. Into deeper shade f2. It is clouding up. Oh
nooo. I left the tripod at the bivouac.
You always shoot on a tripod you say. Then it depends on the old
subject matter. If the lion is old and sleeping after eating plunk
the 4.5 on the tripod and shoot away. Snooze.
If your lion is a she and hunting. You might get her charge at the
wildebeest at f2.8 and 1/500 sec but not at f4.5 and 1/250 second
even on the tripod. Partial blur versus complete blur.
Seriously though you see a lot of these big white lenses at the
Olympics in great banks in places like the side of the Olympic pool.
Even on a tripod you need speed for sports. If you do not shoot that
kind of stuff(I don't), or rock concerts you probably do not need
one. With the superb quality of faster films like Provia 400F it gets
to be less of an issue.
My 2 cents.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
?
< 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 >
|