I think it's great! Although I have to say, often I use the 1.4 to get that
extra stop of light. I guess the thing is, if I know I'm going to be at low
light, then I take the 1.4. Lately, I have been using the 35/2 a lot as my
"standard" lens so the 50/2 doesn't get much use. Here's a shot I did
several months back:
http://www.dragonsgate.net/richard/images/50-macro-test.jpg the aperture
must be at least f/4, judging from the DOF? I have some more test shots of
its macro capability and at f/2, but I have not scanned them in yet.
Overall, I think you will be very happy, if your budget allows it.
At 09:08 PM 6/3/2002 -0700, you wrote:
As I use a 50mm prime quite a lot, I've always been interested in the 50/2
macro. There hasn't been very much discussion on the list regarding this
lens, and I'm looking for opinions.
I have a 50/3.5 which I love, but it isn't really usable until f/8 in my
opinion. (Too slow for low light.) As I shoot 50mm's in low light quite
often, how is the 50/2 at f/2 and f/2.8?
I know we have lens tests that show figures, but can someone give me a
personal opinion on the 50/2 macro? (Maybe in direct comparison to the
50/1.2?)
Any advice would be appreciated.
James.
...
// richard http://www.imagecraft.com
[ For technical support, please include all previous replies in your msgs. ]
< 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 >
|
