All things being equal, the slowest lens is the sharpest for any given
focal length. Less weight is also a minor advantage.
John
On Mon, 17 May 1999, M. Stephens wrote:
> Anyone else have an opinion on this (1.4 vs 1.8 as a lens, not
> loupe)? I was considering getting rid of my 1.8, as I have both
> and only need one.
>
> Mike
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Keith (R.K.) Berry <keith_r.k.berry@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 5:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] Arcane Question No. 1: 50/1.8 as loupe
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Joel Wilcox
> >Subject: Re: [OM] Arcane Question No. 1: 50/1.8 as loupe
> >
> >
> >>My SC 50/1.8 seems a bit sharper than my 50/1.4...
> >>
> >When I bought my OM-2n new in the '80s I asked the dealer how much extra it
> >would cost with the f1.4 50. He said "Don't consider it. Even if they were
> >the same price, the f1.8 is the better lens." The possibility of using
> >either as a loupe didn't arise though!
> >
> >Regards,
> >Keith (Birmingham, UK)
> >keith_r.k.berry@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> >< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> >< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> >
> >
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|