Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 31, 2007, 7:40 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

Happy new Year All !

I did my third full fashion/portrait shoot yesterday and for most of the time kept the 35-100F2 on the E1 and occasionaly swapped it with the 14-54ZD. I'm still astounded by how sharp the 35-100 is and the quality of the files when compared to the 14-54Zd that I began thinking about the 14-35F2 towards the end of the shoot:

If the 14-35F2 was as good as the 35-100F2 would I buy one assuming I was a Pro portrait/fashion photographer ? If I was a pro and I wanted the same look to the files that the 35-100 produces then I think I would have to get the 14-35 even though I think at 2000USD its way over priced and I'm beginning to think even the clients would begin to demand it too.

I've shown the pic's shot with the 35-100F2 to the two models involved and they've been shocked that they were taken with a 5.5MP 3year old camera.

Here's a shot of "T" taken with the 35-100F2 - Just 50% USM. Shot RAW





Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O

HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 31, 2007, 9:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

Hi H:

And happy New Year to you!

Here's another wish for the new year (probably unattainable as I can't justify the price): the ED 7-14mm F4.0

Best wishes;

Steve R.


Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 31, 2007, 11:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

hi Harj
happy new year folks
i would think 14-35/2 and 35-100/2 are required for wedding/fashion gigs
portriats it seems to me can be facilitated in more time, so perhaps your choice of MF lens, not that either of those wont work out, just that some bucks could be saved on the way. In any event 14-35/2 would be cheaper than 35-100/2 by a mile, you could consider 50/2 on the same basis which is very cheap.

thats a nice tight frame Harj and well lit, what was the lighting source, and what have you learned from all this ?

Riley

im still hoping theres a 7-14/4 in my future, but Im inclined to wait to see this 8-?/? UWA due this year, maybe post PMA
Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 5:36 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,531
Default

Hi Steve and Riley!

I'm hoping that 2008 is a wonderful year for all and that we all can become better photographers as well.

Steve, I hadn;t even thought about the 7-14 but now that you mentioned it I can see why it could well be a better lens to use than the 14-35F2, esp when used between that focal range but thats another seriously priced beastie.

Rob, from what I've seen of pricing the 14-35 is even more expensive than the 35-100 which really made me wince. For now I need to save my pennies for the E3.

Lightingwise, the sun had just broken out so there was no flash used just sunlight and a reflector but for this shot I don;t think that was used either. I did learn quiet a bit more about myself as a portrait shooter and its a long list of things to improve!

1. That i've only just in the last month or so taken a decent picture.
2. Communication is really the key and that I need to really know what I want to shoot and be able to convey that to whoever is in front of the camera. Need to really work on this.
3. Its darn hard work but it was fun with T and her friend, as T's just a blast.
4. Know when to switch between the 35-100 and the 14-54 for the right shot and to just do it. I found myself at times sticking to the 35-100 becuase I knew the quality of the files would be so much better instead of switching and thats what made me start thinking about the 14-35.
5. Off camera flash - really need to work on this and get a better understanding of how to use it correctly. Ive got the idea but without practice I wasn;t able to use it.
6. I can take complete rubbish pics for the first 30-60mins of a shoot and that seems to be pretty consistant, although with my cousins wedding that only was for the first 10mins.
7. The pics can only improve in terms of quality and composition,
8. A makeup artist would be really handy, esp when using the 35-100.
9. The E3 - I think with the LV, bigger VF and faster AF and more AF points is definetly going to make doing these things easier and more creative.

I've got a few more shoots coming up this month and my plan is to do at least 1-2 every month from now on. Hopefully, by next year I'd be able to take something decent.

Cheers

HarjTT

:? :O
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 6:44 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Rriley wrote:
Quote:
14-35/2 would be cheaper than 35-100/2 by a mile
I wish that were true, but unfortunately both lenses are the same price - a bit over $2000 USD.

Ted


tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 6:57 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
Off camera flash - really need to work on this and get a better understanding of how to use it correctly.
A while back, JimC mentioned the 14-35F2 as a nice pair with the 35-100F2 and my reaction was that it's very expensive for a relatively short focal range. But I'm reconsidering that viewpoint simply because it's so difficult to take good photos of people with a single flash head and to use multiple flash heads is tough except with a studio setup. (And if you have a studio you don't need flash.) In normal indoor lighting I think the E3's high-ISO performance coupled with F2 lenses will work well without flash. (I'll know more as I have time after the holidays to shoot the E3 with the 35-100F2 - I'm especially interested to see if that combination plus the E3's IS will let me shoot at EV5 without a monopod.)

So if $2000USD rolls my way (and if the lens is ever released) I'm stronglythinking about getting one and taking all my other glass except the 35-100F2 andthe Leica out of thecamera bag. Even at that point I'll still need one of your Sherpas to carry it <grin>.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 7:18 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

HarjTT wrote:
Quote:
I think I would have to get the 14-35 even though I think at 2000USD its way over priced
I think it's overpricedalso, but look at it this way: If you have an E3 with the two Oly F2 zooms you're in for about $6K USD. That's only (roughly) $1K more than the price of the Canon or Nikon Full Frame SLR bodies alone, and you can't get the equivalent of the two Oly F2 zoom lensesfrom either of them at any price. Now the Canon or Nikon FF bodies will shoot athigher ISOs than the E3 (or any other non-FF camera) so theoretically you could use slower zooms for them, but you're still looking at a lot more money for them including lenses.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 8:28 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
boBBrennan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Arlington, Texas USA
Posts: 3,554
Default

.............WOW! I just keep reading and reading and 'sucking' it all in while all I really want right now is the E3, I would be happy and y'all just are not going to sway me into the lenses............YET!

Harj, I have watched your photographic skills pop (as in GOOD) a step or so this year. Congratulations for your hard work, I am looking forward to your exhibits this coming year.

So, to you all, "...thanks for your posts and comments and HAPPY NEW YEAR."
_________
boBBrennan
boBBrennan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 3:11 PM   #9
Member
 
erutcip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 45
Default

Great pic, Harj. T's a pretty gal.

Speaking of anyone crazy enough... just for grins I googled the 4 Zuiko professional fixed f zooms:

7-14mm f4.0 - $1600

14-35mm f2.0 - $2300

35-100mm f2.0 - $2200

Now hold on to your hat -

90-250mm f2.8 - $5300 :shock:

As soon as I win a lotto...

Best wishes for 2008, Dennis
erutcip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2008, 6:06 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

yikes......i didnt dream it was that expansive for 14-35/2
its not listed or doesnt have a price at
http://www.4-3system.com/modules/lenses/
or
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/lenses.html

incidently this Danish photog visited at dp using a borrowed E3 and 12-60
so whoever he is, photo attributed to jh67 aka Jan




so maybe 12-60 has what it takes after all
Riley

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:59 PM.