tom_schutz

<blockquote>

<p>Bigger isnt always better. - Rob H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Rob H. 100%. After spending 20 min. shooting with the 85/2, I realize that at my typical working distances, the 85 mm is just about perfect, and a 100mm lens would have been too tight. The small physical size of the 85 will encourage taking it places and actually using it. I envision carrying an OM body, the 85/2, and a 50/1.8 when out and about. So far, my only beef with the 85/2 is that I wish it had a closer minimum focusing distance, but I guess that would require bigger physical size or more optical complexity as the compromise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bigger isnt always better. - Rob H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Rob H. 100%. After spending 20 min. shooting with the 85/2, I realize that at my typical working distances, the 85 mm is just about perfect, and a 100mm lens would have been too tight. The small physical size of the 85 will encourage taking it places and actually using it. I envision carrying an OM body, the 85/2, and a 50/1.8 when out and about. So far, my only beef with the 85/2 is that I wish it had a closer minimum focusing distance, but I guess that would require bigger physical size or more optical complexity as the compromise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bigger isnt always better. - Rob H.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with Rob H. 100%. After spending 20 min. shooting with the 85/2, I realize that at my typical working distances, the 85 mm is just about perfect, and a 100mm lens would have been too tight. The small physical size of the 85 will encourage taking it places and actually using it. I envision carrying an OM body, the 85/2, and a 50/1.8 when out and about. So far, my only beef with the 85/2 is that I wish it had a closer minimum focusing distance, but I guess that would require bigger physical size or more optical complexity as the compromise.</p>

<p>Here are a few shots done with my "new" OM Zuiko 85/2 that illustrate its bokeh. Aperture was either f/2 or f/2.8. Expired HP5+ at 400, HC110 dil. B, OM-2n. Scanned with Epson 3200, so not critically sharp. - Tom S.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Original poster here...</p>

<p>I just purchased a late-model 85mm f/2 (SN 207,xxx) and should be getting it in the mail later this week. Theoretically, the ED glass in the 100 f/2 should produce sharper images, even in B&W, but this might not make much practical difference for me, because I tend to use minus-blue filtration for portraits, most of which I print in B&W. If I get a chance to buy or borrow a 100 f/2, I would like to compare it to the 85 f/2, and if so, will post the comparison on photo.net.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone, for contributing to a fascinating thread.</p>

<p>- Tom S.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, I checked out some of Jane Bown's photos online. Those are some beautiful portraits. Thanks very much for that reference. Some commentator wrote that she typically shot 1/60 at f/2.8 with the 85mm. </p>

<p>- Tom S.</p>

<p>Thanks gentlemen, for all the great replies. Keep them coming! I appreciate every one of them. Rob H, that OM-3 rig with the 100mm is drop dead GORGEOUS. Konrad, that info from the US patent is seriously arcane, and interesting.</p>

<p>- Tom S.</p>

<p>Hi Fellow Olympus fans,<br>

I want to buy a portrait lens for my OM system. Intended use is available light candid portraits. I like the classic look of subject in sharp focus, against beautiful background bokeh.<br /><br />I own and use Bronica SQ stuff, and Micro 4/3 stuff, but for this particular application, the sweet spot might be using my OM-2n with either the OM Zuiko 85mm f/2 or the 100mm f/2. Less cumbersome than medium format; shallower (i.e. better, in this case) DOF than Micro 4/3 for given FOV.<br /><br />I've read a lot about these two lenses on this forum and elsewhere, and know that the 100 f/2 is harder to find, more expensive, larger and heavier, and has 9 (as opposed to 8) aperture blades. I don't care about filter size. If I go with the 85, I'd opt for one of the later MC versions.<br>

There are multiple comments about the 100 f/2 vs. the 100 f/2.8, but very little about the 100 f/2 vs. the 85 f/2.<br /><br />Has anyone used both of these? Any opinions, or actual examples, of bokeh and sharpness?<br>

Thanks<br>

-Tom<br>

[this question also posted in APUG]</p>

Patrick, I can totally relate to the psychology you're talking about. For some of us,

photography is about more than just the final output. Maybe if I had to sell images to

put food on my table, all I'd care about is the final output. But an amateur has the

luxury of cultivating whatever parts of the photography experience he/she likes.

Personally, I love sophisticated mechanical camera mechanisms. And, I love the

suspenseful moment of pulling a reel of film out of the soup and holding it up to the light

(who can wait until the wash is complete?) - this beats immediate digital LCD

gratification. I love the obvious tangible nature of negatives and transparencies; when

I hold one of my CF cards in my hand, I just don't feel anything, even though I know

that my images are on it. Mostly I scan, out of convenience, but still go into the

darkroom a few times a year, and I like knowing that I have the option of wet printing

my negs. I enjoy incorporating developer/film combination issues into the creative

process.

But I'm no hater of digital. No denying its positives. That's why I was considering a

5D. But it'll be 1v and film for now.

Alan, thanks for the 1Ds Mk1 suggestion; I wasn't even thinking about it until you

brought it up. That camera looks great. Winning eBay bids for these are around $US

1900. EOS 1v can be had for about $US 700. $1200 can get me some nice glass or

half an Xpan.

I agree that a 50mm lens is the way to go. I have the EF 50mm 1.4 on a 20D, and it works

great for portraits. According to photozone.de, the 1.4 wide open is as sharp as the 1.8 wide

open, but the 1.4 stopped to 1.8 is a little sharper than the 1.8 wide open. (But who knows

how consistent their findings would be with different lens samples.) If you shoot a lot of

dim, available light pictures, go with the 1.4 if the price difference is not a deal killer.

Thanks, everyone, for your responses. The combination of objectivity and emotional

feelings with which we relate to our equipment is evident.

What the heck, I'm going to go with the 1v. Seems like the 1v probably has the edge in

autofocus, and can be picked up used for around $600. No doubt that the 5D makes

technically better images, and seems plenty tough enough, but it's not as if there is any

lack of great photos taken on 35mm film. I think I'll hang out in film awhile, until Canon (I

have too many lenses to switch) finally markets a camera with a 5D-class sensor, 1v level

autofocus, and while we're at it, a tilting LCD with practical live-view (a la Sony), for $1K.

Prediction: within 3 years.

Mario's suggestion to avoid P mode is likely to work. I have a Metz flash unit, not a Canon,

but on my 20D, flash shots are consistently underexposed when the camera is set in P mode.

In my case, it wasn't because I had something else incorrectly set (see Mark's post above) - P

mode just doesn't work in my case. I was assuming it was some Canon/Metz incompatibility

issue, but maybe it's more universal.

I never had any flash problems with the 20D in M mode.

Bob: True, shutter sound doesn't affect images any. Well, maybe it does, if you're trying to

be discreet (ask Konica Hexar users).

Supposedly, the EOS 1v has the best autofocus in the universe, or so some say. I'm

wondering how good the 1v autofocus really is (relative to the 5D) and whether I'll get a

higher percentage perfectly-nailed focuses on moving subjects. Maybe not enough practical

difference to justify using film?

(This is not a film vs. digital question).

I know that some of you in this forum have owned, or at least used, both a 1v (film) and a 5D (digital). My

trusty 20D bit the dust, I need a new body, want full frame, and a 1D Mk-X, or 1Ds, are too pricey.

I won't get a chance to rent these, so I'm looking for some opinions.

I'm interested in how good the autofocus is, general ergonomics, ruggedness, waterproofness, and just

how well they work for capturing the image. How about intangibles, like the smoothness and sound of the

shutter, etc?

I shoot candids of moving people (sometimes with low available light), street shooting, and some wildlife.

Beyond that, just general shooting. I can accept some of the limitations of film, if it means that with the

1v I'd get a higher percentage of nicely focused and captured shots than I would with the 5D, or if the 1v

is just flat out more fun to use.

If there's not really a significant difference in these departments, I'd go with the 5D because of the

advantages of digital.

Thanks!

This answer is way late for Peter Rowe, but might help someone else who reads this later.

I have a 20D, and when I look back through my archive, the 17-85mm IS is on the camera

literally 99.5% of the time. Like others have said, the range it covers is undeniably the

most useful for most pictures that most of us take.

The alternative lenses either don't go short enough, or don't go long enough, or don't

have IS, or are too big and heavy, or are even more expensive.

The IS feature is also absolutely key. You'll probably find yourself in dim light situations

w/out a tripod on many occasions, and this feature often saves the day. Having now

experienced IS, I would avold getting any general purpose lens without this feature.

Regarding the optical quality: my other two lenses are a 200mm f2.8L, and a 50mm f1.4.

These lenses are a little sharper in the corners than the 17-85mm, but in the center, it's a

close call. (Maybe they're sharper because of the crop factor). But I don't use these lenses

to get extra sharpness, except rarely. I use them mostly for the bokeh, or if I'm shooting

moving subjects in dim light without flash. And of course the 200mm for longer reach.

How often is corner sharpness really critical? How often do you put your subject in the

corner of the frame?

The fact is, the slightly lower optical quality of the 17-85mm (which is more of an optics

lab issue than a real world issue, IMO, except occasionally), is FAR outweighed by the fact

that I don't miss shots while fussing with lens changes, tripods, etc.

I think that in the quest for ultimate optical quality, it is possible to end up with lens

combinations that cause you to miss opportunities. Many many times, it is more

important to be in the right place at the right time, and ready to shoot, than it is to have a

razor sharp lens on your camera.

I love the smooth, solid feeling of my 200mm "L" lens so much that I looked long and hard

through many many lens reviews on the web, both subjective and objective, to try to find

some excuse to buy some better or sexier lens than my 17-85mm workhorse. I even

rented a 24-70mm 2.8L to try out, and tried on a 24-105 4L on in the store, but I sorely

missed either the upper or lower end of the 17-85mm's range, and the price and the

increased bulk of the L lenses did not justify the(possible) slight gain in picture quality. In

practice, the (slight) extra sharpness of the 24-70 was at times negated by the fact that it

didn't have IS.

So I decided to get over it, and stick with the 17-85. Right back where I started.

Perhaps it is not the ideal lens if you shoot a lot of moving subjects in dim light without

flash. (Go with a fast prime or maybe a 2.8 zoom). And, if I went the route of carrying

TWO bodies around, I'd probably get the 17-40L and the 28-135 IS or something like that.

But again, you might miss opportunities because of the extra bulk of all the equipment.

-- Tom Schutz

Consider this combo:

1. 50mm f1.4 (great for portraits; great for low ambient light; nice bokeh; small,

light).

2. 200mm f2.8L (great price/quality ratio; small & light; 320mm equivalent w/ 1.6x

factor).

3. 17-85 IS (sharp enough for people shots; great versatility; IMO, best lens for street

shooting on the 20D, and also for candids when the light is sufficient).

The only thing missing here is the really wide range. I don't really need it; maybe you

don't, either.

Cheers,

Tom S.

Andy wrote:

'Beauty for women and power for men has been with us forever. Just read some

history, any history. It's in every culture in every period.'

This is true - on the surface, at least. But beware of anyone's interpretation of

history, including your own, because it can never be MORE than just an interpretation.

Power and beauty are some of our current culture's preoccupations. When we look at

whatever meager scraps have survived from past cultures, and try to interpret them,

we are going to do so from our own frame of reference. Our own preoccupations will

determine what we pay attention to and what we ignore when interpreting historical

evidence. We cannot ever really get into the heads of people from the past, and see

things the way they did.

Aside from these concerns, though, I agree with your generalization.

Robert, Sandeep, and Alistair: Thank you all, for your thoughtful commentary. It

really seems like a toss-up between Kirk and Markins (BH3 & M10). I won't go wrong

with either, I'm sure. The M10 seems slightly better overall, but is it worth spending

extra bucks for load capacity that I might not ever require? Only I can decide. It's

definitely down to these two. Isn't it great, to have the luxury of splitting such fine

hairs?

Lee, Yakim, and David: your recommendations led me to carefully examine (via the

web) the Linhof, Kaiser, FLM, Bogen, and Acratech heads. All look great. Now I really

feel like I've been able to review all possible options!

Again, thanks to everyone for your input. I know it's fun to shoot the breeze about

our hobbies, but still, it takes up some of your time.

Best regards,

Tom Schutz

Thank you, everyone, for your excellent answers. After weighing all your advice and

surfing a little more, I've got it down to the KIRK BH-3 vs. the MARKINS M10. Both

sound like excellent units. The Kirk is about $80 less, but I've seen comments from

some users that the friction adjustment on the main ball does not modulate very well

- it's either "on" or "off." Users of the Markins say that its friction adjustment works

well. Other issues: some have found the Markins to "get sticky" in cold

temperatures, but no such complaints about the Kirk. The Kirk QR shoe appears to

lack a spring-loaded "plate stopper" pin, but the Markins has this feature. On

balance, I lean to the Markins. Any Kirk users who can attest otherwise about

friction adjustment?

Hello ballhead warriors! Can I pick your brains?

I'm trying to select the optimum ballhead and quick release plate equipment for the

following two camera systems:

Bronica SQ-A

Canon 20D

My biggest setups are with a 150mm on the SQ-A (this setup weighs about 5 pounds

or 2.3kg), and a 200mm F2.8L with lens mounting ring and Extender 2x on the 20D

(this combo weighs in at about 4 pounds, or 1.8kg).

With smaller lenses, the Canon weighs about 2 pounds (~1 kg), and this would all be

off-axis when tilted 90 degrees for verticals (unless an L-bracket is used, but do I

really need an L-bracket with a 2-pound load if the ballhead and 3021 tripod are

strong enough?)

I don't anticipate getting any monster lenses, but if I do, I'll probably just break out

my Bogen 3047 panhead or purchase a separate heavy-duty ballhead for specific use

with a big lens.

But for now, I need a relatively lightweight ballhead for carrying around, including

hiking, that's still stout enough to hold my equipment steady. I'm willing to take a

reasonable weight penalty if it actually means better pictures.

My current tripod is a Bogen 3021. Some day, maybe I'll get a CF 'pod, but for now

it's the 3021.

Here are the three ballheads that I'm most interested in, and I'd appreciate any

comments about these, but am totally open to other recommendations:

1. Velbon PH-273QL. Not much commentary about this head on the web, but

there have been some favorable impressions, and no negative ones that I've been able

to locate. The stated specs put its weight at 1 pound (0.45kg) and its carrying

capacity at 11 pounds (5kg). It has a nice looking quick release setup, but it's not

Arca plate-compatible, which as far as I can tell will preclude getting an L-plate (but

maybe this doesn't matter). It's also the least expensive, at $170 (B+H) including one

plate; extra plates are $30-50. Any thoughts on the PH-263QL (a little lighter, and

stated capacity is 8.8 pounds)?

2. Acratech. At about $270 plateless, it's the most expensive. I'll fork out the

money if it's really the only head that can do the job, otherwise I'll pass. The Arca

plate/L-plate compatibility is key, IF an L-plate is needed.

3. RRS BH-25 Pro. By far, the lightest (6.5oz, 0.186kg), but also the lowest stated

load capacity (8.8 pounds = 4kg). Takes Arca- & L-plates. $145 plateless. Falls in

the middle price-wise. Looks nice in pictures, but how would it do flopped 90

degrees for shooting verticals, if an L-plate isn't used? I'm not willing to fork out the

$$ or endure the wait for a BH-55.

Do you think I really need an L-plate to shoot vertical with the 20D? It's not an issue

with the 200mm lens, because I can rotate it within the lens mount. It's obviously not

an issue with the Bronica given its square format. How unstable would things actually

get if I am shooting with the 20D with small lenses (e.g. 50mm 1.4, or 17-85mm

zoom) and just flop it 90 degrees sideways for verticals? Putting the camera weight

off-axis would be an issue with a heavy setup, but with the smaller lenses, would

there really be significant instability?

I'm guessing not, which is why I'm leaning toward the Velbon PH-273QL. Seems like

this head should be good enough to hold my heaviest stuff when on-axis, yet stout

enough to hold my lighter stuff when tilted 90 degrees for verticals. And I also would

not have to bother with L-plates (their expense, bulk, fussing with hex-wrenches,

etc). Am I guessing correctly?

I do not have access to all this equipment for actual testing (if I did, I wouldn't be

bothering you!)

Thanks for your help!

Sincerely,

Tom Schutz

I want a rotating flash bracket, i.e. one that can keep the flash

over the lens while in either horizontal or vertical orientation (go

ahead, 6x6 users - laugh). I use a Pentax 645n and a Metz 40MZ-3i

(shoe mount). Any SPECIFIC suggestions? I couldn't find anything

useful in the MFD archives, and the Stroboframe website is pretty

vague...

Thanks, y'all.

The method that Joe describes, and that Irving elaborates on above, seems to make the most sense. We eagerly await Irving's field tests!

A related consideration this audience might be interested in pondering, while we're on the subject:

I got to wondering whether using *second-curtain sync.* would affect the ratio of fill flash to ambient light. If the flash doesn't fire until just before the shutter is about to close, then ambient light will be accumulating for most of the time the shutter is open, perhaps forcing the camera's meter to limit the flash output to less than it would normally be when using conventional first-curtain sync. (resulting in higher ambient:flash ratio). My guess is that what exactly happens will vary from camera to camera, depending on the particular design. (Not that this would have much practical use...)

Fred, check this out:

My instruction manual for the Metz "SCA 3701 M3" adapter (which mates Metz flashguns with the 645n and other Pentax cameras) says the following:

"TTL FILL-IN FLASH CONTROL (AUTOMATIC FLASH EXPOSURE CORRECTION): All elements of an exposure are influenced by normal exposure corrections with the help of aperture or shutter-speed settings, change of film speed or by the +/- correction on the camera. However, the overall exposure can be retained with the help of a special TTL-fill-in flash control function so that only the darker sections are brightened up by fill-in flash. TTL fill-in flash is automatically activated by the camera to match the ambient light situation."

So apparently, one option with Metz flashguns is the above-described fully automatic fill-in flash mode. I don't like this description because it doesn't reveal the algorithm the electronics are using in this mode ("trust us - we'll get it right").

Nevertheless, I put my system into this no-brainer point-and-shoot mode (645n in programmed auto mode, FA 80-160, Metz 40 MZ-3i set to TTL mode) and snapped a few people pictures in the following circumstances: outdoors with bright noon sun (harsh shadows), outdoors at dusk, and indoors with moderate daytime diffuse ambient light.

The exposures came out well, with what most of us would consider nice balance between flash and ambient illumination. This is obviously NOT a serious, systematic test; it's only a quick first impression, but it looks like it works. I'll have to do more experiments.

Finally, there might be a way to gain more control of what the camera and flash are doing in TTL-fill-in mode. The camera automatically transmits the currently set lens aperture to the flash unit; but the flash unit has buttons which allow manual input of the aperture setting that the flash will use in its internal calculations, and I think this can override the information that the camera is sending to the flash. Thus, it might be possible to get "flash exposure compensation" (as distinct from the camera body's exposure compensation function) in order to adjust the intensity of flash output in TTL-fill-in mode.

Sorry I'm just speculating instead of giving hard answers, but I need more time to experiment. If anyone is still interested a month from now, email me and I'll tell you what I found out.

Tom Schutz

tom_schutz@hotmail.com