Prime Lenses....

BJL,

The DC lens has 4 functions.

1. Straight 105 tele
2. Select Foreground blur
3. Select Background blur

Both 2 & 3 are achieved by selecting a secondary aperture ring setting at the mid point of the lens after focus has been achieved.

4. Soft focus lens. Soft focus is achieved by selecting the secondary aperture before the lens is focused.

So in short it's not the same as Gaussian Blur.

Tony

BJL said:

Adrian,

I agree that a "narrow field of view" portrait lens will not work
for all cases, I was just throwing it up as one option that had not
been discussed much.

About "defocus control" lenses, do these do anything that cannot
now be simulated nicely with digital manipulation like Gaussian
blur? I will try to read up on the optics of partially uncorrected
SA, but you seem like you might have the answer at your fingertips
(a good figure of speech for the internet, don't you think?)

Click to expand...

--
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=579&page=user_images

I heard Nikor 60AF is super sharp. Why dont compare 50f2 ZD with that lens? I believe 50f2 ZD lens was awared as one the the best lens in major US photo magazine in 2003, I just cannot remember the name of the magazine.

a t o m i c said:

TrapperJohn said:

When I put the Nikkor 50 1.4 up against the ZD 50 2.0, the ZD was
clearly superior. Then again, the Nikkor 50 1.4 is an old lens with
old coatings, so that probably wasn't a fair comparison.

Click to expand...

Definitely not fair - the ZD 50 is a) very expensive b) state of
the art c) complex (11 elements!!) and d) one stop slower. Nikon's
highly regarded 55mm Micro-Nikkor would be a fairer comparison.

--
Adrian

'I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem
to have
been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself
in now and
then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary,
whilst the great
ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.' - Sir Isaac Newton

Click to expand...

--
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=24&page=user_images

BJL said:

a t o m i c said:

The 'pancake' lens in trad 35mm designs was achieved by fitting a simple, Tessar-like design onto the mount. The design of the FourThirds mount demands a kind of 'extreme retrofocus' ...

Click to expand...

Well, not so extreme, and quietly, all the other sub-35mm DSLR lens
mounts (except possibly Canon's EF-S) require retrofocus lenses for
normal to wide angle lenses, due to using the back-focus distance
of a larger 35mm format SLR design. Even EF-S mount seems to have
the lens mount flange too far away from the focal plane, but maybe
an EF-S pancake lens could recess the lens elements into the body
cavity.

So normal pancake lenses are more or less ruled out: note that the
Pentax DA pancake lens for its DSLRs is 40mm f/2.8, which is a
"short telephoto" in that format. (Though its Tessar desing is very
different from a true telephoto design!)

Click to expand...

Well, a Pancake lens does not neccessary automatically taking the 4 element Tessar design. The old Olympus 40/2.0 is not, neither do the Pentax FA-Limited 43, nor the Konica AR 40/1.8. With assymetrical double gauss design. the short focus length of thses lens do not require a lot of physical space. Technically it can be done, even the old Ricoh 28/3.5 ASPH ( pentax K mount ) is a pancake

IMHO the missing slightly wide standard for the DSLR is simply a result of being there exist a large selection of 28mm lens ( which relate to roughly 42 on an APS-C sized DSLR, close enough ). Now if Pentax can made that 40DA, I am sure all of the other major DSLR Mfr have the capability to do. But I suppose itmight be quite a challenge for Olyumpus, Contac N, & Canon EOS as its not likely to be able to accomodate the Focusing motor in such restricted space.

--
Franka

Ross wrote:
..... Hopefully the smaller lens making firms will get

Ross said:

interested now that 35mm has kind of dried up for them. .....

Click to expand...

Unlikely, sure the 35mm film market dried up, but those lens are going onto their respective DSLR. 4/3 just do not yet had the market penetration to afford them a viable drive to deliver 4/3 lens. We look at Tamron, and Sigma, which make up the bulk of these independent lens maker. And they would be producing lens for Nikon and Canon foremost, then what's next in line, not 4/3, but Minolta and then Pentax even though both of which are both later in coming to the DSLR market ....

Sigma had a batch of 20/24/28mm fast fix focals in f1.8, and surely they can adept it to 4/3, but they are not doing it. Neither do Tamron with the SP90 or SP180 Macro, not even their now trademark ultra zoom .... in the end, that signals that the 4/3 had yet to make the market penetration it suppose to do

I think its a bit asking too much to think that these Mfr will satisfy the need for now. Olympus just had a dilemmma here. If they want to grab the market share, they need products to fill the system. And filling a system mean s diverse product which iare not going to be in short term paying for themselves. So Olympus concentrate on those that sells. But for a sizable portion of the market and propective customer, missing those means missing something in the system that they need or want. So they will not be buying into the system or at least not buying until there is something along. Which of course in the short run means less market share ( and guess what those proespective customer buying )

--
Franka

Seems clear that many posters here have not even read the article by Reichmann

It is not an argument regarding the value of primes vs zooms.

The point that he is making is that while on a shooting trip in the third world, he would rather sacrifice some picture quality to save his back the weight of carrying half a dozen primes, and stick to a couple of zooms

He feels that it is better to capture a great image with acceptable sharpness then to miss most and concentrate only on premium levels of sharpness

Can people please read the article before expressing their wisdom ?

Higuma said:

I was just reading with interest Michael Reichmann's review of his
recent trip to Bangladesh entitled... "Bangladesh - What Worked –
What Didn't"...

Now, regardless of your personal opinion of him, he does take some
fine photos and his report is VERY INTERESTING...

Please keep in Mind that he took a 1Ds MII and a 20D along with
quite a number of pieces of "L" glass including a 300 f2.8 L Prime
lens... An article with how, what and why he kitted out for this
trip is here...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangladesh-bags.shtml

Allow me to quote with regard to his conclusions...

"Next Time"

" If I were to do this trip over again tomorrow I would lighten my
photographic equipment load considerably. I would take just the two
bodies and two lenses, the 70-300mm DO IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8L.
With these two lenses I would be able to cover 95% of all
opportunities, and save my back a lot of grief. Laptop and storage
would be pretty much as was used on this trip. "

The entire article is available here...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bangla-worked.shtml

NOW... What I found interesting is that with all of the Belly
aching going on about the lack of Olympus Prime lenes... A guy like
this - who I am sure has a shiit load of primes available to him -
only takes one to start with and then in the end says that next
time he would settle for two good zooms...

Perhaps some of you "prime aficionados" would care to read the
aforementioned articles and let me know what all the belly aching
is about...

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Paul JM said:

Seems clear that many posters here have not even read the article
by Reichmann

It is not an argument regarding the value of primes vs zooms.

Can people please read the article before expressing their wisdom ?

Click to expand...

I read it. Got the point, don't disagree, found the remaining comments in this thread quite interesting. Good threads don't always go in straight lines.

--
scott kirkpatrick
http://www.pbase.com/skirkp

scott kirkpatrick said:

Sean Reid said:

scott kirkpatrick said:

and the seeing
characteristics of a contrasty 28mm lens on a 35 mm body.

Click to expand...

Lowish contrast, actually, for digital capture (as I discussed in
that lens review)

Click to expand...

Why give up contrast? Especially with the dynamic range of the
E-1's Kodak sensor, if no other problem occurs (red noise, moire)
the clarity that you get from having an MTF of nearly 1 halfway to
the pixel frequency really makes a picture come alive.

Click to expand...

I discussed this issue in some detail in my review of Leica and CV lenses on the R-D1 on Luminous Landscape. I'd link the page but DPReview forums somehow erase LL links. Feel free to take a look if you're curious because it's a long explanation.

scott kirkpatrick said:

scott kirkpatrick said:

but yes, FOVs of 28mm, 35mm and 50mm

Click to expand...

Have you worked with the 11-22? It has convenient markings at
exactly 14, 18 and 22 mm, which are pretty much what you think in
terms of. If they just put a slight detent in, it would feel like
an old pre-zoom multifocal length lens. But it is big.

Click to expand...

I haven't used the 11-22 yet but I have used many, many zoom lenses and have nothing against them. My personal preference is for primes, but that's me.

scott kirkpatrick said:

scott kirkpatrick said:

scott kirkpatrick said:

(Well,
Reid seems to be questing for an 85 mm lens on a 35 mm body, but
he'll have to explain that.)

Click to expand...

Why do you say 85mm? I'm curious.

Click to expand...

I recall you saying in one of those threads that you were attracted
to a 42mm prime, and that it would be for use on a 4/3 system. Did
I misread that?

Click to expand...

A 42mm FOV...so an actual focal length of 21mm.

Cheers,

Sean

Hi Scott,

I should say also that I don't really believe in debates, per se, of zoom vs. prime, digital vs. film, etc.. I think there should be lots of options available (whatever the markets will support) and that people should choose whatever works for them. I haven't used film in a long time but I hope that it remains widely available for those who prefer it.

I've never quite understood the zeal with which Person A tries to convince Person B that his or her method, camera, lens, storage device, etc. is best. Why should Person A care what Person B uses? I think the customers should ask for what they want and manufacturers should decide whether or not they want to make it. Someone should make small, fast, light primes for 4/3 if the format is going to mature but it doesn't need to be Olympus. Those lenses should exist so that photographers have more options, as they do in the Canon and Nikon systems. But the only people who should buy those lenses are the people who really want them - not people who are already content with the current zooms.

I'm sure Michael would just shake his head to see what's been made of his discussions about equipment choices for Bangladesh. He discussed them just to share what he learned for himself. One takes that information and uses it as he or she likes. If, hypothetically, I went with Michael on his next trip to Bangladesh I'd be carrying two R-D1 bodies and perhaps four small RF lenses. That would be all - no flashes, not my 1Ds, etc.. And person three would have yet a different kit, etc..

I often wonder if for some people (and I'm not necessarily referring to anyone specific on this thread) approach discussions of photography as if they were rooting for their favorite sports team. I make much of my living with these tools and I don't look at it that way at all.

Cheers,

Sean

Sean, I think that was the point I was trying to make, that everybody should have a choice. I tried to explain why I want a prime/primes, but many posters were seeing it as a quality issue. I'm very happy, as I stated several times, and now again, for Olympus to make zooms. As many as people want. But I would also like them to make some primes, or at least for me a wide angle prime. I just feel that people who have zooms seem to be of the opinion that Olmpus have covered the range, and so prime users have no case.

I did get the point of Micheals article, but my posts were in response to the agressive tone of the original poster, stating that wanting primes was just 'bellyaching'. That statement seems to have missed the point of Michael's article, but deserved a response, nevertheless.

My real point in my replies was that too many people see other's needs only from their point of view. In 35-odd years of full-time photography, I think I can make a reasoned and accurate assesment of what works best for me.

People who only want to use zooms don't have to buy primes, if Oly ever make them. But people who would favour primes have, so far, not been given that choice.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

I read the article, and I got the point that Michael was trying to make. But my response, and many others who posted, was not in response to Michael's article, but in the interpretation deduced from it by Higuma, the original poster. And many posters here were obviously responding to that deduction, too.

Perhaps you didn't read all of the posts in this thread, or read the original post carefully enough?

Many of us were not engaging in just a prime v. zoom debate, but a discussion on why we would like a choice, which in the main has not yet been possible.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

rayk said:

everybody should have a choice.

Click to expand...

I agree.

In 35-odd years of full-time

rayk said:

photography, I think I can make a reasoned and accurate assesment
of what works best for me.

Click to expand...

I agree.

rayk said:

People who only want to use zooms don't have to buy primes, if Oly
ever make them. But people who would favour primes have, so far,
not been given that choice.

Click to expand...

Have you played around with the OM lenses at all? I'm really curious to see how the OM 21/2 does on the E-1. I use various Zeiss lenses on Canon bodies and it certainly involves more fiddling but the results have been stunning. The 1Ds with the Zeiss 28/2.8, for example, is stunning.

Cheers,

Sean

rayk said:

I did get the point of Micheals article, but my posts were in
response to the agressive tone of the original poster, stating that
wanting primes was just 'bellyaching'. That statement seems to have
missed the point of Michael's article, but deserved a response,
nevertheless.

Click to expand...

Ray - with all due respect - for someone in the language industry in Japan you have managed to read right through my comments and now I am starting to take offence... I am trying to learn to be patient living here in Japan - but it's just taking too damned long...

To be clear one more time.... and I quote from my original posting....

"What I found interesting is that with all of the Belly aching going on about the lack of Olympus Prime lenes... "

Realizing that this statement could have been seen as unclear I then clarified in a later post saying....

"I am sick and tired of hearing all this bitching about the 4/3 future being bleak without a bag FULL of fast primes"...

So TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR ONE LAST TIME... I am not unhappy with either the individuals or the concept of "wanting primes"... What I am disturbed by is the notion that "the 4/3 system cannot survive with-out prime lenses"....

WHICH IS DIFFERENT from your assumptions above saying "stating that wanting primes was just 'bellyaching'" - my comments were about the imminent failure of the system without them....

rayk said:

My real point in my replies was that too many people see other's
needs only from their point of view. In 35-odd years of full-time
photography, I think I can make a reasoned and accurate assesment
of what works best for me.

Click to expand...

I understand this point of view and agree with it 100%... I am sorry and offer my apologies to you based on the fact that I failed to clearly state my original insinuations so that it was understandable by everyone... As a result you had no choice but to form the opinions that you did...

Regarding the point of Michael's original article... I don't think that I did miss the point... his conclusions are clear and concise... I will abrevieate...

MR wrote:

"With these two lenses I would be able to cover 95% of all opportunities, and save my back a lot of grief"...

This is clear enough for me - less lenses, less weight, less grief and same opportunity.... I understand it and although you think I missed the point - I did not...

I was simply extrapolating from his comments, My own opinion that " I cannot understand why some individuals are foreseeing the demise of 4/3 without a large number of prime lenses being manufactered"... sorry if that is not clear enough for you...

Further, I believe that the availability of primes would be a good selling point for the system - heck, I'd buy a few perhaps...

Cheers,

rayk said:

I read the article, and I got the point that Michael was trying to
make. But my response, and many others who posted, was not in
response to Michael's article, but in the interpretation deduced
from it by Higuma, the original poster. And many posters here were
obviously responding to that deduction, too.

Click to expand...

My interpretation of MR's conclusions were and still are "zoom lenses can and do perform the job well enough for a discerning professional like MR in 95% of situations" and as such " People suggesting that 4/3 will die without the inclusion of prime lenses are wrong"...

Certainly, some of us went off on a tangent about SEEING and learning perspective control etc.., with primes but this was never part or my intention in the original post... Somebody else brought it up and I simply responded that SEEING - although better facilitated with prime lenses - was not un-learnable or impossible to accomplish without them...

Cheers,

Sigma is making its new zoom lenses for smaller format DSLRs in 4/3 format.

On the other hand, for short primes of near normal FOV like 20mm to 28mm, no-one is showing any interest in designing new such lenses, despite that fact that they could be significantly cheaper, lighter and of better opticam quality than using rather wide angle lenss and cropping away 60% or 70% of the field of view. (Compare those Sigmas to a 50/1.8 for 35mm format.)

The fact that the best option from any camera or lens maker is using these maladapted, oversized, overweight, overpriced short focal length primes on DSLRs tells us that the market for such primes exists but is quite small, at least in the judgement of the industry.

My prediction: the niche of people for whoom fast normal prime are important will choose formats other than 4/3, and the sales lost to 4/3 will be small enough to have no substantial effect on the overall competitivness of 4/3.

BJL said:

My prediction: the niche of people for whoom fast normal prime are
important will choose formats other than 4/3, and the sales lost to
4/3 will be small enough to have no substantial effect on the
overall competitivness of 4/3.

Click to expand...

I think that you've hit the nail on the head - well thought out and suscinct...

Cheers,

This is the type of blind arrogance that gets companies into trouble. The whole breath of arguments presented here points to the fact that there is no concensus among the users. Given that it's not about 'need' but rather the 'want' driven by emotions, Oly needs to provide the choice weather the user truely needs it or not, because the market demands it!

Who needs a pop-up flash on a mid range camera anyways? They're useless, you don't need them. Who needs 5 fps other than the 1 percentile pro sports shooter? Thanks for nothing Oly... hello Canon 20D.

Get the point?

Higuma said:

" People
suggesting that 4/3 will die without the inclusion of prime lenses
are wrong"...

Click to expand...

Higuma, some brief points.

My original post was in response to your original post. In fact in this reply here, you refer to three distinct and seperate statements, two made in later posts. I made no response to those, which seemed to me to represent an attempt at backing away from the 'Devils advocate' style (Bill's words) of your original position. I was attempting to explain to Sean that my response was to your original post, which I thought I had a right to do, given that I have been an advocate for primes on this forum.

Michael's article is about travelling into that type of situation with primes or zooms. Not about primes versus zooms in general. But it seemed fairly clear to me that you were using it to mount an argument along those lines. So I don't think my response was a misreading.

I didn't make any statement to the effect that Olympus would fail without primes. I simply stated that I would work better with them. Which you and OzRay proceeded to indicate I was wrong about. That I could 'see' just as well with zooms. I thought that was presumptuous, and responded accordingly. I wouldn't, and didn't, make that presumption about either of you, and your ability to work as well with, or better with zooms. You have conceded that I have the right to make my choices for my reasons, for which I thank you.

Oh, and finally, if you want to question my ability as a photographer, or my opinions about photography, go for it. But please don't make personal asides about my English teaching. You won't, and can't offend me doing it. You know nothing about my abilities in that area. And I've been insulted by experts. This is a photography equipment forum. So please just stick to the point.

Ray Kinnane
Sag-shi, Japan

No, I don't think that I do get the point. Is it 'want' versus 'need'? If we should only need, who needs digital? Who needs SLR's? My first camera was a box brownie. It took good pictures. Do I 'need' anything else?

Why do some people seem to want Olympus NOT to make primes?

I thought we were being offered a system. I think most people would have assumed that this meant that in time, we might get a range of lenses that provided choice for everyone. Sure, I don't need anyhing other than zooms. But I want a wide prime, because I want to work with it.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

http://www.pbase.com/rkphoto

Sean wrote

Sean Reid said:

Have you played around with the OM lenses at all? I'm really
curious to see how the OM 21/2 does on the E-1. I use various
Zeiss lenses on Canon bodies and it certainly involves more
fiddling but the results have been stunning. The 1Ds with the
Zeiss 28/2.8, for example, is stunning.

Click to expand...

No I haven't, Sean. I don't come from an Olympus background, and really know nothing about pre-digital Olympus lenses. But I think I would like to stay with auto-focus, even though I manually overide it, and through the lens auto metering, even though I usually overide that, too. But the choice to stay with the digitals is probably made more out of ignorance than any educated preference.

But I did sell off all of my Nikon film gear, including a swag of Nikon primes (very nearly worn out), to get into the Olympus system. There are things about it that I prefer over the digital Nikons. And if I have to live with zooms, I can. And I do use them, I think reasonably effectively. But I know that things are happening, or more likely not happening, because I prefer to use primes. Or to be specific, what I would use is a wide prime that equates to about a 24mm lens on 35mm format. I could, and would carry that around with me as my only lens almost all of the time. I don't need a fast lens, although others seem to prefer that. I like to shoot sharp right through, if possible.

I purchased the 50-200 zoom when I bought my Olympus gear, although I don't really know why. I think that I have taken as few as a handful of photos with it, and then only around home as a try out. I have no beef with it, but I just don't shoot that way, or the kind of subjects that require it. I never used tele lenses of any real length in my whole time working professionally. I think I even prefer to do portraits with a wide angle.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

http://www.pbase.com/rkphoto

No camera company needs to address every small niche of the entire photographic market.

Long ago, Canon made medium format cameras, the TLRs that were quite dominant at one time. Then they discontinued them, restricting the choices for Canon users to the smaller 35mm format. Nikon, Minolta, Olympus and even Leica restricted their customers in a similar way.

Was this blind arrogance that got them into trouble, or was it just deciding to leave a small and shrinking market sector behind and concentrate on the growing 35mm film format?