I did a head-to-head between my old SC 50 1.4 and my newer MC 50 1.8 using
Ilford Delta 100. For my subject I wanted a lot of different textures to
check the local-contrast of the lenses. I used a still-life with a
wicker-type basket containing fruits of various textures (apples, peaches,
oranges and lemons) agains a long rustic tile counter and backsplash.
Lighting was from a softbox slightly overhead and to the right for slight
shadows with detail. I tried all of the f-stops using the OM4 auto to get
the exposures consistent... I I then blew up 5 shots from each to 11 X 14 on
Ilford MG4 and found very little differnce in the rendering of the textures,
the sharpness, or the overall quality. The 1.4 seems to have better contrast
(surprisingly enough, it is SC and much older - though pristine) and the
'warmth' is better too. Since the 1.8 cost me $10 I was very pleased to see
how well it held up agains my trusty 1.4. I would love to do the same test
in color and maybe compare chromes under a scope, but I have no scope and I
don't shoot nearly as much color anyway.
I just bought a 55 1.2 and am anxious to compare that one to the 1.4 - Also,
I'd love to see your results. The 1.4 is my favorite but only because of my
long history with it (15 years? Could it be that long ago that I was in
high-school?). Please post your results in the list!
- marc
------- Garth Wrote --------
One thing I think I'd like to try is a head-to-head-to-head-to-head
comparison of all three 50s: the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 (SC and MC). Since I have
an example of each of these four, I'm tempted to try some more exhaustive
(and exhausting!) tests using my pro buddy's studio setup. Now if only I
had an appropriate test target... Any suggestions, anyone?
Garth
< 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 >
|