on 4/30/02 4:46 PM, Richard Allen at dickallen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Thanks Jim,
> It's a toss up between the 50/1.2 and the 50/2.0 macro for me. The BIG glass
> is like a magnet and the macro, I suspect is going to make some "pretty
> good" images :~).
> I have been trying to find an ultra wide for some time, so the 17/3.5 is a
> bonus.
> All in all, I think it is a good deal.
I have the 50/2.0 macro (actually, two... like any good Zuikoholic!) and you
*will* like that lens. The 50/3.5 macro is nice because it is small, sharp
and light, but focus is a bit fiddly with the 3.5 aperture, and that is even
a smaller 'effective aperture' as you move the lens out more. The 50/2.0
doesn't have that problem, it gives a very fine definitive focus as you move
in close, and the finder stays bright. Its not all that much bigger, either.
I think it is about the same size as my 55/1.2 lens...
I've heard so much that is good about the 50/1.2 that one of those is on my
'future acquisition' list. I tend to like shooting without flash where
possible, and its more possible with a 1.2 than a 1.4, usually that extra
half-stop is the difference between ~1/15sec. and ~1/25sec. where I try to
hand-hold. If money were easy I'd have an M6 and 1.0 Noctilux for my
inside/handhold pictures... anybody got a spare $4000 laying around? <g>
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< 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 >
|