Maximum Apertures and Lenses

I want a "fast lens!"

I hear this often, but without any real explanation or logic behind the statements. "Fast lenses" (or large aperture lenses) are nice to be sure - if they're any good at that aperture. Few but the most expensive lenses are. There's a bit of physics involved here. A fast lens is BIG. That's not to say that there isn't a time and place for a fast lens.

Back in film days ISO 400 film was about the highest speed you could get before the image would degrade. So, a fast lens was good to keep a decent shutter speed. That's not the issue in digital days and with larger sensors and no real ISO's.

Autofocus was pretty rare in film days and you needed as shallow a depth of field as possible to accurately focus - manually - with an SLR, TLR, or view camera, and then you stopped down anyway.

In digital days a fast lens can assist autofocus but autofocus systems are more geared towards determining the contast of the focus point for accuracy (an out of focus point is lower contrast than an in focus point). A fast lens can help with framing with a through the lens optical viewfinder. With an electronic viewfinder, the view is gained up electronically.

So that leaves us with depth of field. True, a faster lens has a shallower depth of field - if you know what depth of field is and how to use it. Today's electronic viewfinders and even the viewfinder in an optical SLR are too small to accurately see the depth of field effect - assuming the camera has a way of previewing the depth of field. In an SLR that would mean stopping down the lens and that would mean making the optical or electronic viewfinder dark.

Where I'm heading with all this tech talk is the near automatic negative reaction to digital lenses with smaller maximum apertures. These lenses are smaller, lighter, easier to carry and typically better wide open than some fast lenses. Granted there's a bit of digital, behind the scenes, tweaking going on, but the laws of physics still apply. A fast lens is bigger and heavier. Unless the lens is optimized to shoot wide open the image may suffer to some degree.

The point is that you shouldn't automatically think "it's only an F4..." and walk away. That lens may be incredibly sharp at F4 compared to an F2.8 or higher lens. Optics are complicated that way. In these digital days it's a lot more complex since the lens and camera electronics, and even the RAW converters, work together to optimize the image. This wasn't so in film days where the lens was everything. If the lens didn't get the image sharp on the film, well, nothing was going to make it sharper.

Little Big Zooms for Olympus Pen Cameras - NYTimes.com

I didn't expect to see an article about new Micro Four Thirds lenses in the New York Times Gadgetwise section of their site. I'll have to check there more often. I'm seriously thinking about getting the new M. ED 40-150mm F4.0-5.6 lens for the E-P1, more so when I read this:

"The Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 lens (that’s a 35mm equivalent of 80mm to 300mm) weighs only 6.7 ounces and has a minimum length of 3.1 inches."

The thing is that the lens looks smaller than the Four Thirds ED 40-150mm f4.0-5.6 for my E-510 - and you'd think it would be - but it's not. This new PEN lens is very slightly slimmer (2mm) but slightly longer (11mm) and 30 grams lighter. It takes a lot of optical alchemy to make a zoom lens this big this small. This article points out how much bigger similar lenses are. Does the similarity in size to my current 40-150mm put me off? Not a bit. I seriously thought about getting the Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds adapter for my ED 40-150mm. I like that focal range. For a bit more than an adapter I can get a whole other lens, even if it does duplicate one I already have.

Say what you want about Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds but sometimes less is more. I'm more likely to carry either of my Olympus cameras than something bigger and heavier. Olympus has always been the master of compact, high quality cameras. The PEN series (even the E's) carry this tradition forward.

Thanks to Rik Fairlie and The New York Times for a nice article. I've read the others out there but this is the first one to compare the sizes of similar lenses.

Little Big Zooms for Olympus Pen Cameras - NYTimes.com

What is it about Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds...

I rarely read or join camera forums for specific cameras since I rarely find anything interesting there. They're not about photography. They're about cameras. We all have "the one (or more)" that works for us and that's not going to be the same for all people.

Today we have digital cameras that look like 35mm SLR's and rangefinders but with different sensor sizes, megapixels, technologies and so on. It was easier in 35mm days. One film format. Cameras had to distinguish themselves from one another with lenses and features.

I'll admit right off that I like the Olympus system going all the way back to the OM's. Not all Olympus cameras and lenses but there were and are quite a few gems. When it came time to get a digital SLR I read all the reviews and all the articles and specs and came away with a whole lot of nothing - mostly confusion. Each camera system had its strengths and weaknesses.

So, why Olympus again? Because it was a clean sheet design. The Four Thirds "thing" wasn't as important as the idea that the body and lenses were designed to work together. This wasn't a modified OM with a sensor trying to use OM lenses. Olympus is also well respected for their lens designs and image quality. There may not be many lenses but they are all good lenses. The point is I know that any sensor of any size is only as good as the lenses in front of it.

When it came time to choose between Olympus and Panasonic it really came down to two things. I know both companies make excellent systems. I wanted the optical stabilization built into the body, not the lenses. The other was "feel". The Olympus cameras simply felt better in my hand.

The greater point to all this is that when you consider a digital SLR or interchangeable lens compact you need to look at the entire package. It's not always about the biggest sensor, highest megapixel count, amount of lenses, highest ISO or latest trick feature. The whole thing has to make sense from the moment you pick it up to the moment you finish post production.

In the end - it's all about the image. The image has to stand for itself. Nobody ever said "that's a great image because it was shot with a...." Don't count out Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds cameras until you try them. You may discover that they're quite good.

Olympus announces all-black E-P2 kit and two new Micro Four Thirds lenses

I was wondering what Olympus might announce before Photo Expo. I expect some updated  models for the Four Thirds cameras. I couldn't guess what they would do for the popular PEN series. Lenses for sure but another body? They're pretty well covered with the E-PL1, E-P1 and E-P2. I'm very happy with the E-P1. It's an incredible camera. Anything "up" from here wold be evolutionary. The all black E-P2 is a beautiful kit, though.

What I do miss, compared to my E-510, is the 40-150mm lens. Sometimes I like a bit more reach. Olympus came out with the 14-150mm and I was seriously considering it. A MFT 40-150mm was more of what I had in mind. It's the lens that's attached to my E-510 most often so I have that focal range mindset. I tend to shoot "long". So, the MFT 40-150mm is now on my must have list.

What I'm really hoping for is a price drop on the FL-14 flash unit. That's a pricey thing for the power and features it has. I can get a Metz 48 with more features for not much more and a Metz 36 for far less. Maybe that will be the next surprise.

Coming from Olympus OM's all I can say is "thank you" to Olympus for the PEN and E series. There was nothing quite like the OM cameras and lenses. They were beautiful to look at and great to use. The same holds true for the PEN's and the E's.

Olympus announces all-black E-P2 kit, two new Micro Four Thirds lenses | Digital Camera Resource Page News

Carol Sudhalter at the Louis Armstrong House Museum...

I had the great pleasure of seeing Carol Sudhalter present "Women's Works - Two Queens Composers" at the Louis Armstrong House Museum this weekend. Most amazing were Emme Kemp and Sarah McLawler, two great women of jazz. The entire ensemble was brilliant. My thanks to these brilliant artists. Bravo!

Normally I never link to an entire collection of images but this is an exception. There are far too many to pick and chose the best and there's a lot of interest in the images.These are small, low res, images so if any press people need larger images please drop me a note. A photo credit would be nice. The Louis Armstrong House Museum is a very special place.

There are many new images in the Gallery and Thinking In Images this weekend!

---

Noble Wolf Studio Gallery
Noble Wolf Studio Notebook
The Slide Report
Thinking In Images