GAS Dear Giary!

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
I had the yesterday's companions at my desk here and started to study and clean them to the tune of Lloyd Webber's Cats. Got very emotional when I was holding and studying the 50mm with Memory playing in the background lol. 😿
Understandable, Mike ...
At least with this lens the focus distance scales are pretty accurate. Just my luck, I had to get the only third party adapter that's perfectly manufactured to original flange distance? Maybe I'll buy the cheapest possible adapter I can get my hands on, hoping it'll be sufficiently short.
Extremely good (bad) luck! Can't even rely on the makers of crap to get it wrong. What's the world coming to?
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Virginia
Name
Steve
Today it stands to repeat last Wednesday's success.

Last time I walked with Nikon Df; now it would be a good idea to see how much easier (if not necessarily better) Olympus does in the same situation.

Inspecting the gorgeous results that I got from Nikon make it really difficult to consider my other cameras! :p I have actually half of the results still to edit and PP.

View attachment 347710

The Nikkor 35~200 is a really wonderful lens even though it has its share of optical imperfections and that "zoom look". The bokeh and its transition is however very much what the doctor ordered. Very nostalgic film like results.

When the adapters come, I'll be testing the lens on the Panasonic. In the meantime, I can naturally adapt the lens on the M4/3 cameras but I don't think I'll do it today. (I could have a 70-400 or a 50-300 depending on the adapter used...)
Ok, Mike, what’s “the zoom look”? I’m asking because curiosity won out over pride.
 
Location
Finland
Ok, Mike, what’s “the zoom look”? I’m asking because curiosity won out over pride.
I guess by it I just mean the chromatic aberrations common in many zooms and primes but which I often see in older zoom lenses. It's a poor phrase because there are more accurate terms to describe what I am seeing. Then again, communication is not an exact science.

The Nikkor 35~200 has its (very!) fair share of aberrations and limitations. Hefty barrel distortion, vignette, overly soft at the wide end, the said CA. It all adds up to a cool coctail.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
I guess by it I just mean the chromatic aberrations common in many zooms and primes but which I often see in older zoom lenses. It's a poor phrase because there are more accurate terms to describe what I am seeing. Then again, communication is not an exact science.

The Nikkor 35~200 has its (very!) fair share of aberrations and limitations. Hefty barrel distortion, vignette, overly soft at the wide end, the said CA. It all adds up to a cool coctail.
Thanks for that explanation, Mike.

I've never seen anything like that with my 8-25 or 12-100, or most of my other Olympus digital zooms, FTM.
 
Location
Finland
Thanks for that explanation, Mike.

I've never seen anything like that with my 8-25 or 12-100, or most of my other Olympus digital zooms, FTM.
M4/3 zooms, even the cheap ones, tend to be well corrected. I have previously remarked how it was the system that opened my eyes about zooms being usable and worthwhile. Well, at least Panasonic zooms are very pleasing to the eye. The Olympus 12-50 EZ is a black sheep among the lenses that I own IMO. The Pro zooms that you have must be very good, I have little doubt about that.

Likewise I disliked the zoom look in the Fuji 18-55 kit zoom and many of the Pentax zooms (and primes for that matter) that I have. They have mainly downsides and not many of the upsides that the Nikkor 35~200 for example has. The beauty is in the eye of the beholder in this case.
 
If I had to give an example of the "zoom look" I'd probably give a (dis)honorary mention to the good ole Canon EF-S 18-55 kit zoom. It encapsulates the poor contrast and dull colours I associate with the "look". The Fuji 18-55 is also an offender here, but nowhere near is it as bad as the old Canon kit lens. The Lumix G 12-60 3.5-5.6 also shows this, IMHO.

So, not all zooms exhibit this fabled "zoom look", but it's real, and the older the lens the higher the propability comes. Old superzooms from the film days might be good candidates as prime examples of "the look".

Zooms have progressed a lot in the past decade. Now we can get performance once reserved for the L-class of lenses from superzooms like the Oly 12-100 or Tammy 28-200. That simply wasn't a thing a decade ago.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
If I had to give an example of the "zoom look" I'd probably give a (dis)honorary mention to the good ole Canon EF-S 18-55 kit zoom. It encapsulates the poor contrast and dull colours I associate with the "look". The Fuji 18-55 is also an offender here, but nowhere near is it as bad as the old Canon kit lens. The Lumix G 12-60 3.5-5.6 also shows this, IMHO.

So, not all zooms exhibit this fabled "zoom look", but it's real, and the older the lens the higher the propability comes. Old superzooms from the film days might be good candidates as prime examples of "the look".

Zooms have progressed a lot in the past decade. Now we can get performance once reserved for the L-class of lenses from superzooms like the Oly 12-100 or Tammy 28-200. That simply wasn't a thing a decade ago.
I've always assiduously avoided zooms and systems that had those crappy zooms (and often primes as well ... ).

While my 12-50 is no stunner, it's not bad either. Even the humble 14-42 EZ does a workmanlike job. If the slightly decentred optics bother one, one can always crop that 5-10% off the (usually) left hand side of the image. The colours, contrast, etc are still fine, not muddy, or lacking like some I've seen.

Even the kit lenses that came with my E-510 were excellent. In 2007, how many makers put ED elements in their kit lenses? Some of the best photos I have ever taken were taken with that camera and its two humble kit zooms.

I'm not a fan of 'character' in lenses. I prefer an accurate rendition of what I'm looking at.

The better zooms really started to get on par with decent primes in the late 1970s to mid 1980s. Only Canon and Nikon waited until around 2005-2010 to get on the train ...
 

jbruce

Top Veteran
Location
Northern MN
Name
John
I've long considered the 12-100. Expensive and heavy and too slow for night time so it's not on my immediate radar. The 14-150 is something I'll probably get sooner.

I like the 50 & 135 prime combo precisely because of the prime focus. You have the 135 on your eye, after a few minutes a fifty is all the wide angle you ever need. And vice versa, after observing the world through a normal, 135 seems to offer just the right amount of reach.
Mike, I just recently got a 12-100, and have owned a very good copy of the 14-150 as the first zoom with my em5-2 for 5-6 years. Frankly, the 14-150 stands up very well in IQ to the 12-100, much to my surprise. And it is much lighter, but isn't quite as steady as the 12-100. Had I known how little difference there is between my samples, I'd have just stayed with 14-150. But I got the 12-100 for such a great bargain from MPB that I can use it for years and still break even on the cost; and I do like the constant f4. If a deal comes along on a good 14-150, I'd jump on it and pick up some good prime glass as needed.
 

drd1135

Zen Snapshooter
Location
Virginia
Name
Steve
If I had to give an example of the "zoom look" I'd probably give a (dis)honorary mention to the good ole Canon EF-S 18-55 kit zoom. It encapsulates the poor contrast and dull colours I associate with the "look". The Fuji 18-55 is also an offender here, but nowhere near is it as bad as the old Canon kit lens. The Lumix G 12-60 3.5-5.6 also shows this, IMHO.

So, not all zooms exhibit this fabled "zoom look", but it's real, and the older the lens the higher the propability comes. Old superzooms from the film days might be good candidates as prime examples of "the look".

Zooms have progressed a lot in the past decade. Now we can get performance once reserved for the L-class of lenses from superzooms like the Oly 12-100 or Tammy 28-200. That simply wasn't a thing a decade ago.
I use primes more often than zooms because I don’t want the cost and weight of the really good zooms available these days. Like many, however, my telephoto needs (200+ mme) are mostly filled by lesser zooms that still produce acceptable results. I’m definitely looking at buying the XF 75-300 at some point.
 
Location
Finland
The X-T5 is all-in-all a wonderful addition to the Fujifilm camera family. Shame they didn't remove all of the poor videoisms that XT4 brought to the series but it's certainly a nice camera to lust after.

I've been seeing better and better deals on X-T2's so that could be one way to go.
 
Location
Finland
'twas about precisely a year ago when I went and splurged on my biggest acquisition yet.* The gear was all pristine and all, but won't play ball together, I found out later. I could have negotiated something with the seller, but then again, it was several months after the purchase, and I think he did price the stuff with shortcomings in mind.

(*) It was a single transaction of 4200 €, but actually I think I should treat my original silver M the most expensive purchase: I never wasn't going to just buy a body; I shopped a lens for it the very same day. In that sense that was a get of 4800 € for a body and a lens.

My silver M is also at the point it could do with a calibration. Because a given lens behaves differently on the silver M and the black M, it must be wisest to send it all.

I've been slowly preparing myself mentally on the inevitability: will I send my Leica stuff to Wetzlar for CLA in 2023? Two bodies, three lenses. (They probably wouldn't adjust my Jupiter-8 if I sent it alongside.) :D

And if I do just that, send my stuff over there and expect it all to cost very dearly, I might best purchase some lenses of calibration needs before I send everything over. I'm talking about 90mm and 135mm lenses.

The first step would be to send emails over there and ask noncommittedly about their baseline pricing and handling times and other technical minutiae. That'd get the ball rolling. But I am pretty scared about the charges. I expect something on the order of 2000 € for the whole works (may include shutter replacement on the black M). These imagined estimates are enough for me to procrastinate this months (and probably years) forward.

Two large would buy some other crap I'd happily experiment with. A third Fuji X set maybe? Maybe the third time's the charm. Just maybe...

In any event, like I wrote previously, the 2021 was overly extravagant time for my GAS and since it ended on such a low note, the dark clouds of it still loom over my future plans.

(Indeed, during 2022 I have so far only bought two sets of gear, the first of which also casts the shades of failure, much like the December purchase.)
 
Last edited:
Two large would buy some other crap I'd happily experiment with. A third Fuji X set maybe? Maybe the third time's the charm. Just maybe...
Funny thing, I was just flippin' through my Lightroom catalogue for this year, and stumbled upon some pictures I'd taken with the X-E3 and the XF 27/2.8. And those two can render some very fine images, I give it that. Fuji is a system I've tried to like twice, and twice have failed. Neither times did they fit my shooting style. Kinda shame, the X-E3 is a thing of beauty. But I do think some of the lenses are frankly overrated.

People however have different styles, needs and preferences. That's why I still hope to see all the current manufacturers thrive in this dwindling industry. From a consumer/customer perspective choice is always a good thing, even if one doesn't have an acute need for it. That day still usually comes for many of us, when a previously happy camper suddenly jumps ship for one reason or the other.
 
Location
Finland
0804812289a5dfb28ba70799.png


This basket is at least 500 € more expensive than separately fished items, but at least one can get everything at once, with warranty. (And 60mmf/2.4 is very rare on the used markets.)

Don't get your popcorn ready, I was just looking at availability and general pricing. The credit card is safely in the other room.

Fuji is expensive stuff, but in a way Nikon Df (which I have likened to be "a Fujifilm X-T3 on steroids") fails to deliver on some of its promises so Fujifilm has justification on my roadmap.

~

My first round with Fuji X was a brief stint in the late winter-early spring of 2017. I had a year with the X100T on my belt and wanted to explore the praised ILC lenses of Fujifilm. X-T1 was also an attraction because it was a then-flagship of Fujifilm system (kinda) and I have a thing for flagship cameras.

So I quickly built myself an accompanying setup next to my main camera, the X100T. I scored an X-T1 and 18/2 and 35/1.4 all from separate sources and that was it.

But the X-T1 was an ergonomical mess and couldn't do the lenses much justice. The lenses were neat but slow to focus, and the camera misfocused them constantly. Sharpness-wise I was happy with the X100T's builtin lens. I was overhyped on the qualities of the 35/1.4. Back then I didn't pay attention to the soul of a lens. The 52.5 mm eqv felt either too short or too long, I was a 35mm person back then.

I sold the setup quickly. The buyer was a happy camper. And I was super happy to go back to one-camera system. It didn't last long after the disposal when I was visiting Helsinki and a camera store there, I had my first contact with a Leica camera. The rest is history.
 
Why the X-Pro and not an X-E? Latter is tinier, and at least with the X-Pro1 I found the OVF more of a gimmick than a useful feature. Especially if I wanted to nail focus, I'd end up using the EVF most of the time.

But if Fuji, I'd say the XF 27mm in either of it's iterations is worth a try. That 40mm equivalent FOV is very useful, and it does render very nicely. Not the quickest focusing, though, but snappy enough if you're not shooting toddlers frantically running around a confined space (as I've previously stated, small kids cannot be pinpointed in space-time, rather they exist as a statistical distribution).
 
Location
Finland
But if Fuji, I'd say the XF 27mm in either of it's iterations is worth a try. That 40mm equivalent FOV is very useful, and it does render very nicely.

I did have the XF27 for a little bit. It's great. It's probably the 4th prime to get.


Why the X-Pro and not an X-E? Latter is tinier, and at least with the X-Pro1 I found the OVF more of a gimmick than a useful feature. Especially if I wanted to nail focus, I'd end up using the EVF most of the time.
I lusted after the X-E2 and X-E3 in my time but now I don't know.

If I was going to get a Fuji body with an EVF, I always gravitated towards the models that had the best and biggest EVFs, therefore the X-T series.

You're right that the window finder without a rangefinder is much of a gimmick. I never used the OVF on the X100T that I shot for 18 months. No focus confirmation is the worst. And yet, the OVF was the reason I bought the X100 when one became available for cheap. And I have shot it in the OVF for 99% of the time. The little camera is in constant M mode and I autofocus it, using back button focusing. I get a focus distance scale and histogram and picture review in my OVF (for the last the camera temporarily switches to EVF of course).

X-Pro2 offers ERF, the corner EVF for focus and the rest of the viewfinder can be optical. Ain't beating the optical when it comes to DR, color, tonal fidelity, and timing your shot.

Optical is the way to explore and enjoy the world. It's the old restored muscle car you take out of the garage on a sunny Sunday.
 
Optical is the way to explore and enjoy the world. It's the old restored muscle car you take out of the garage on a sunny Sunday.
Or maybe the old Nissan Sunny you take out to remember the cr@p you had to drive as a kid? But you're right, I did explore the world behind that wheel quite a bit. Still, I prefer having my morning coffee behind the wheel of a modern Mondeo since I can... But I admit, every now and then I check teh internets whether those old Nissans still exist in the wild and how much I'd have to pay for one. Spoiler, they've been going up in price.
 
Location
Finland
Remember that I'm not doing any of this stuff for a living. I'm just shooting my cameras to pass the time.

Any camera that does things too easy for me is directly detrimental to my pastime.*

And I don't subscribe to the current fad that everything has to be perfectly sharp. If the blurred film pics of old have their sentimental value, the same must apply to any new digital pics taken today. The majority agrees with me -- plenty of badly exposed, blurry phone pictures out there and people are stoked to have them.


*Yet, of course this perspective also fluently changes from time to time. Now I've been lusting after the cheap Canon 1DX for sale.
My brother used to shoot a bit in his time and he had serious GAS towards the 1DX back when it was the flagship model and cost 5 grand or something like that. He's given up the hobby since. Imagine his reaction if I just bought it and gift-wrapped it for him for Christmas!
 
I agree so far as to sharpness does not make an image. But rarely is technical perfection detrimental either. Sharpness - or lack of - is a tool among many to use by the artist to (try) achieve what one wants to convey to the viewer.

And I didn't mean to be dismissive of your style of going about you pastime in any way you please, god knows I'm extremely prone to GAS myself no matter how much I tell myself new gear doesn't make me any more a photographer than I already am (not). I keep thinking about getting a FF Nikon DSLR and some screw drive lenses just for nostalgia purposes, but when I ask myself "would I take that out and use it in the field" the answer is usually "why would I want to do that?". And then it ends there. Maybe I've become too lazy, but I have limited time currently for photo trips because of the baby, so I don't want to waste those trips playing with gear, rather I want to just concentrate on the picture taking without my gear coming in the way.

I did almost buy some darkroom equipment, though. There was a pretty nice looking Durst enlarger complete with developing trays and most all the other paraphernalia needed for not much money, but it was in Jyväskylä, so just a bit too far away for me to make an impulse buy. Then I came to my senses and remembered that this winter electricity is about all we can afford anyhow... Or we really can't afford, but have to... Still, the idea of a Bronica SQ system and a rudimentary BW darkroom keeps haunting me.
 
Top