Nice shot, I guess you wre close enough!
Billl Pearce
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicholas Herndon [mailto:nherndon@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 10:16 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] OM Fast Wides, WA in general
>I agree that the 1-4 is actually easier to focus. But mostly
>wide-angle lenses. The 2-4 has that nifty shimmer when it hits critical
>focus, but with wide-angle lenses you have to have a brutally sharp
>lens wide-open to get it. Otherwise, you can't trust the bokeh to help
>you because the way the microprism angles are it just doesn't drift in
>and out of focus the same way. For telephoto lenses, the 2-4 is
>screaming good.
Ken, yes, the 1-4 is easier to focus, but I'm talking about the 1-4N
screen--it came later in OM production, has a finer matte resulting in a
brighter screen, but doesn't completely lose contrast in an OM-1/2 like the
2-4 screen is prone to doing. I did place the 2-4 screen in my OM-2S and
wow, what a difference it made. But I don't really like the OM-2S and I'm
selling it, so it's moot. Plus I use wide angle lenses a majority of the
time.
>Speaking of screaming good...
>The 28/2 is one of those unusual lenses which I have to really sit on
>my hands for. 28mm really isn't my focal length, but man-alive, that is
>one very sweet lens. I got to use Joel's at one of our mid-Iowa
>Zuikofests, and had to return it rather quickly. First of all, I think
>he was nervous about losing another lens to me, and secondly, I
>wouldn't have wanted to return it.
Yes, the OMZ 28/2 is one of my all time favorites. I rescued my particular
copy from the bowels of KEH UG hell and then sent it in to John H. to be
resurrected (it needed a front element replacement due to loss of coating).
Now it's like brand new.
Here's a couple recent shots taken with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pooroldpunch/4888264503/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pooroldpunch/4888257507/
I use my 28/2 like most people would use a 35/2. I really like the 35mm
focal length, and if I could only have one prime lens it would be a fast
35mm, but in my current kit the 28/2 is my "walkaround" lens. (If and when
I get a Mamiya 7, I'll probably go for the 65/4 since it will be my only
lens for a long while and it's the focal length equivalent of 32mm for 135
film. Someday I may pick up another cheap copy of the OMZ 35/2.8, but it's
not on my priority list.)
>What's not to like about the 28/2?
I guess the only thing not to like is that Photodo gave it a rating of 2.4.
Doesn't really jive with my experience or other tests done. I think they
either got a bad sample or were missing critical focus.
>1. It's brutally sharp
>2. It's bright
>3. It's compact
>4. It takes 49mm filters
>5. It's got a contrast curve that wakes up the dead 6. Did I say that
>it's sharp?
>7. It's got that 3D'ness of some of the last OM Zuiko designs.
>In the world of "one lens, one camera", I'd take the 35mm focal length.
Agreed.
>But if I were to go with only one wide-angle lens, it would be the
>28/2. That said, I've lived quite happily with my 24/2.8 for the past
>20 years. (second one, first one wore out a few years ago).
>AG (so many lenses, so little film) Schnozz
>Hmm.. Bill, all things considered, 21mm and 28mm are still
>reasonably close to each other, if one considers a rather minimalist
>kit of doubling focal lengths.
>But it's such a personal thing. 24mm is probably my favourite focal
>length. To be honest, I only bought my 21/2 to replace (well, I still
>have it) very worn 24/2 - I would have been happy with a mint 24/2 -
>but got a good deal on the 21mm.
>21mm is a lot more difficult to use correctly, and I do prefer the
>shallower DOF possible with a 24mm f/2 for many shots.
>Dawid
Dawid, you see my reasoning here. I was going to pare down to a three lens
kit of 24/50/100. I like the logic of doubling focal lengths, and I really
like the way a two lens kit of 24/50 or 24/100 works. Unlike Bill, I do see
the 24/2 as a suitable replacement for both the 21/2 and 28/2, but both
those lenses are so good and the market for them so bad I just couldn't bear
parting with them. It was hard enough selling the 24/2 even at such a low
price. And that's nothing, I just saw a 24/2 sell on ebay this week for
about $200. Granted it looked like a pretty worn copy, but still useable.
(As an aside, I'm glad it went for very little as the seller was making
patently false statements in his listing, such as "silvernose copies are
more rare and of better quality than blacknose copies" and that his copy was
in "better condition than the one KEH has listed for $600." I assure you it
was not.)
>I'm a WA guy, I come from the if your pictures aren't good enough [get
closer] school, so
>I always considered the 28 as the first real, but controlable WA, so
>the 21 really meant something to me. Therefore, the 21/2 is a real
>sweetheart.
>Bill Pearce
Me too Bill, and unlike Ken I don't see the problem with using a 21/2 for
people shots. Yes there is distortion, but it can give some interesting
results (one of my favorite recent photos of my wife was taken with this
lens from a very close distance). The trick is not to photograph a person
from head on (unless that's the look you want). It's also good for group
shots in tight spaces.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pooroldpunch/4888268721/
Fast wides rule! I love them, distortion and all.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|