> Can anyone tell me if the Zuiko 135/2.8 has a bad reputation?
For every lens, there will be some who deride them, and several enthusiastic
supporters. In the case of the 135, it is fashion, mainly. When I was first
interested in photography, in college, the 135 was the second lens you
bought. (the first was either a 50, or, in the case of the adventuresome,
the 35) there were a lot of them, and they were cheap. I think there were
even some three element barely coated ones. As word got out to the provinces
about the Nikkor 105, things began to change. After all, if (insert name of
big time photographer) uses a 105, why shouldn't I? Hence, the 135 became
unfashionable. The day then arrived when we all got the 24-50-100/105
outfit.
I got a 135/2.8 about 8 years ago. Haven't used the 100 since. It fits with
the 85 nicely.
Now, to metering.
> I have to mildly disagree here. I would say that the most accurate
exposure is always with incident metering.
> Don't you interpret incident readings based on reflectivity of the
subject/scene?
> (1) Nothing, absolutely nothing, beats incident readings for
> determining correct exposure, particularly when shooting color,
> and most particularly when shooting transparencies.
>
> If you take the incident reading at the point the light falls on the
subject or a similar point, you shouldn't have to do any adjustment. The
reflected light from that subject will determine its tonality, regardless of
its lightness or darkness.
>
> I'm with Jan on this one. I use incident metering 20:1 outside of my
camera vs. reflected metering. Spot metering is pretty >much overkill for
most subjects unless you can't get close to the subject or you need to
contract/expand tones on a >particularly flat or high-dynamic-range subject
scene.
I agree with all of the above by all of the above. The incident meter
measures the light falling on the subject. Since your reading is not based
on the reflectance of the subject, you need make no adjustments for
highlight and shadow, it happens "automatically." The highlight and shadow
readings with reflected meters, like the OM4, are to compensate for the
failing of the meter in the situation (it is assumed that the in camera
meter user is not using the meter for zone like meterings.) That's why
cinematographers use incident meters, where they need every roll exposed the
same, for matching from scene to scene.
> Let's say I'm taking a picture of a very dark subject (e.g. the side of a
black camera lens) to sell on eBay. If an exposure of >it yields very dark
tones, then the buyer cannot see detail on the lens body. So instead I want
the object to appear in tones >of gray. Based on an incident flash reading
at the subject, I would probably need to open up a stop or two from that.
Here, you're right. In this situation, you are not trying to accurately
record the subject. You are trying to change its appearance to highlight
something. In this case, you would probably meter with the OM4's spotmeter
conventionally, but not use the shadow compensation.
Or, of course, you could let it go black, and look more minty.
Bill Pearce
< 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 >
|