Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Addicted to glass

Subject: [OM] Addicted to glass
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 08:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
Since January of 1986 I have shot over half of my pictures with
two lenses:  100/2.8 and 35/2.8. These two lenses give the
pictures a look and feel that I have never been able to recreate
with ANY other lens.

I know that these two lenses aren't the only ones in the world
with good Bokeh, but they have an unique Bokeh that isn't even
matched by other Zuikos.  When looking through the viewfinder of
my OM, the scene just doesn't look right unless my special
lenses are in use.  Other focal lengths are necessary for
framing, but I always want to gravitate to these two lenses.

The results speak for themselves.  The lenses (and viewfinder
image) contribute to a style.  I've altered what I shoot and how
I shoot it based on the lenses.  Is this a case of form follows
function? Or is it function follows form?

I try to ween myself from the Zuikos.  I know that I have to get
a new DSLR.  Logic says that the new lenses are "better" for
digital than the old lenses and the specifications prove that
out when looking at resolution charts or studying the chromatic
aberations.

I'm torn over this. The APS format (and it's many variations
including 4/3) alters apparant focal length.  Unfortunately a
focal length is a focal length is a focal length. The smaller
sensor just "crops" the image but doesn't alter the optical
properties of the lens.

I like the 3-dimensionality of my two Zuikos. The Bokeh is
creamy and has a variable penumbra based on distance from
critical focus. The penumbra even fades. Modern lens
designs--especially the zooms and "digital" lenses with parallel
rear-exit characteristics do not generate the same type of
Bokeh. Objects out of focus actually are "multiple-imaged" which
creates a sense of Bokeh, but with a harsh penumbra and poor
fade characteristics.

Modern lenses are crisp and sharp and even have a deeper
"in-focus band" than old designs. This translates well for
deep-focus pictures, landscapes and general-purpose photography.
Many of these even do pretty well in Macro because of the
increased apparent DOF.

But, I will admit.  I'm an artist.  There is something unique to
the look and feel of my pictures that isn't captured with other
lenses.  The closest I've ever found is the Contax 645 system,
but I've got to sell my house to fund that system.

I think that we've forgotten that the "camera" is just a device
to capture the image.  The image is generated by light,
reflected light and transmitted light. Transmitting the light is
the function of the lens.  The best sensor/camera in the world
will not work unless a lens of some form (even pinhole) is stuck
infront of it.

AG


                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz