Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] 12-40 F2.8 Oly zoom for the EM-1

Subject: Re: [OM] 12-40 F2.8 Oly zoom for the EM-1
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:02:09 -0700
On 8/26/2013 3:52 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> More data leaked.
>
> http://www.dailycameranews.com/2013/08/olympus-om-d-e-m1-camera-12-40mm-f2-8-pro-lens-price/
>
> Pricey combo. Will see how it performs relative to the similar Panny
> zoom.  Looks  like very serious gear.

It may seem a silly question, but, serious for what, and whom?

Fast zooms were a big deal in film and early digital days. We associate them 
with serious/pro photographers because they 
are big, heavy and pricey and because they were bread and butter lenses for 
many actual pros.

And yes, I still have my  80-200/2.8s. They were important lenses with film. 
Needing 1/200 minimum shutter speed, and 
more, if to be enlarged or cropped much, with film that started to go downhill 
noticeably at ASA 200, later 400, lens 
speed becomes really important for any but really good light. And I have the 
24-40/2.8 and 60-120/2.8, but seldom found 
them really more useful than the typical f3.5-4.5 zooms.

With IS and amazing IQ at higher ISOs, one doesn't need a wide aperture to get 
the shot for many uses. So the advantages 
of fast lenses start to come down to higher shutter speeds to stop subject 
motion, focusing and intentional shallow DOF, 
for subject/background separation and artistic effects.

Contemporary AF systems work well with slower lenses and rear screens and EVFs 
don't need great lens speed to be 
effective. I am far, far more often looking for more than less DOF. Would I 
like to be able to catch more birds in 
flight? Sure! Do I think a bigger, faster lens would hep my reflexes to find 
and keep the subjects in the frame? Not 
really. ;-)

It was also true that essentially all lenses needed to be stopped down at least 
a couple of stops for best performance. 
This is far less true with contemporary lens designs, so good IQ at any given 
stop requires less maximum aperture.

So what would a 24-80 eq. f2.8 zoom bring to me that my 24-100 eq. f3.5-6.3 
doesn't? Would it look cool, more 
impressive? I suspect it will just look large on µ4/3 bodies. It would mean 
lower ISOs at the long end, which ain't bad. 
It would mean carrying around a larger, heavier lens, perhaps offset by a 
lighter wallet? :-)

Like virtually all fast lenses, especially zooms, I'll bet it won't focus very 
close. The 12-50, OTOH, has an excellent 
Macro mode. Close focus is really important to me.

So, are we to be impressed, and interested, because such a lens was a big deal 
long ago? Or might we match up the 
characteristics of a new tool against our practical photographic needs before 
thinking about shelling out the dough? And 
toting the load. ;-)

My 12-50 is almost certainly a better match for me. Darn fine lens, in fact. :-)

Pragmatic Toter Moose

-- 
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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