Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 24/2 vs 21/2 vs 24/2.8

Subject: Re: [OM] 24/2 vs 21/2 vs 24/2.8
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:09:15 -0500
Well, this discussion of wide-angle primes has me thinking about a couple of
things. First of all, since I am a hybrid digital and film shooter, whatever
lenses I have must work well on either system. The OM 35/2.8 tends to be a
little better for digital than the 35/2 because of the central hot-spot
issue common with the 35/2 lens. However, on film, the 35/2 is almost always
superior to the lowly 2.8 version.

But then I stop and think about how often I use the 35/2.8 on the digital
cameras? Slim to none. On the E-thingies, it gives me an effective 70mm
focal length which is my choke and puke focal length. Nothing good ever came
out of 70mm... It's too long to be normal, it's too short to be a telephoto.
 YMMV, but that is one focal length I never came to grips with.  Once in a
while, sure, but not typical at all.

The 24/2.8 is a decent lens on both digital and film. Do I love using that
focal length? Well, in a way, yes, but it's also a very utilitarian focal
length. Not very artsy and it just works.

If I was forced to have just one focal length for the rest of my life
(perish the thought), I personally would consider the 35mm focal length on
FF 35mm film to be my perfect lens. That's one reason the new Fujifilm x100
has some serious draw to me. Of course, that camera probably stinks in other
regards, but the lens, for a fixed focal lenght, seems about right.

If given a choice between a 35/1.4 and a 50/1.4 lens, I'd choose the 35mm.
Since it doesn't exist, well, then the 50/1.4 serves me duty for the
hyper-bright lenses these days. Unfortunately, at 1.4, it doesn't gain you
anything on digital, where you have to stop down to F2 to get rid of the
fringing and the max aperture of the mirror chamber in the E-thingies is
1.8.

Something has been stewing in this little pea-brain of mine. People are
spending $500 on junk lenses for the digital cameras these days. $500 can
get you some seriously good OM lenses. I bought the E-1 with the 14-54 mk1
lens. Figured it cost me $500. Sold it for about half that. Just bought a
second-hand 14-50 for $600 and they tossed in the DMC-L1. "Investing" in
digital equipment is like "investing" in a car. You're better off buying
beachfront property in the desert.

But then the question eventually has to be asked...why shoot film? Isn't
digital better? Well, yes--usually. I still think that even as good as my
E-1 is with skintones and such, there is no substitute for Kodak Portra NC
films. I did a quick scan a few nights ago for somebody needing a reprint of
a portrait shot a few years ago. It was on 160NC. The IQ is simply
unattainable by anything E-system. You really see the difference when you
have a high-contrast edge--especially with saturated colors. Skintones? Oh,
how I miss those skintones. My last two portrait shoots had to be digital
for reasons beyond my control, but I'm eager to do an upcoming one in a
couple of weeks with film. Today's Portra 400NC is simply so good as to
render 160NC unneccessary. I have a wedding scheduled in a couple months to
be shot with film. Aaaahh.  Discriminating customers know the difference.

Why shoot film? If Dawid's pictures don't explain it, no amount of words
will.

AG
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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