Thanks for your very good insight in a generous message. It helps me see
what really matters for me now. I guess I will still get rid of my 50 F1.2
if only because its a bit too much money tied down for a 50 mm lens, and
also because I could use that money to get back a 28 F2 that I really seem
to miss now. I regret having sold a year ago one good one I had of the 28 mm
F2. Also, I just bought a clean and nice 50 mmF 1.4 to back up once I sell
the 50 F1.2. And the pictues I have taken look sharp as expected. a I also
have the 85 F2, and the 21 F3.5 so with the 28 F2, I will end up with a neat
small kit as Tom Scales used to profess was better for him.
Thanks for the tip about KEH, I will check out the 28 F2 lenses there.
Recently I have found the 28 mm more useful than ever.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Gries" <rgg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 10:26 PM
Subject: [OM] quest for the ultimate 50mm - was love affair w/ 50/1.2
> I have recently been searching for a good 50mm to compliment the 85/2
> and 28/2 that I have been using. Honestly between these two lenses (and
> maybe the 135/4.5) I can usually get everything I need with the quality
> and size that I expect from Zuiko. However, I do find occasion for the
> 50mm focal length, and am interested in finding one to suit my purposes.
> At present I have a >1M (but not >1.1M) 50/1.4 that, to me, is a bit
> softer that the 85 and 28. I have borrowed and tested a 50/1.2 in hopes
> that it would be better (especially around f2) than the 50/1.4, but have
> found that it is only marginally better. I have to say that both of
> these lenses are *great* when stopped down, but I am looking for
> performance at f2 or larger. The 50/1.2 is definitely better, but is it
> THAT much better to justify the cost? Well, not for me.
> I have also been testing the 50/2, but I did so only hesitantly because
> the size and reported sharpness may be overkill in most situations.
> After looking at the first roll (test subject mostly being my 4 month
> old son and other things around the house) it seems that the 50/2 IS
> that much better, and (critically) a bit too sharp for portraiture. I
> am also put off by its large size and handling. For me, the "ideal" is
> ergonomic as well as raw performance. The 50/2 just doesn't fit in the
> same "family" as the 85/2 or the 28/2. As I usually prefer to use the
> OM-1n over the -4Ti, I find that the 50/2 isn't that good of a match.
> My conclusion at present is to stick with the 50/1.4 and 50/3.5 (if I
> need the sharpness) and save the money for now. I still maintain that
> the 135/4.5 and 80/4 are the best for macro work (not only in terms of
> sharpness, but also in working distance) and the 50mm macros are just a
> So, to answer a few questions, I would skip the Kiron, get one of the
> 28/2 lenses from KEH, keep the 50/1.2 since you already have it, and
> look for a good macro set-up. one other thing I do have to say about
> the 50/1.2 is that I love the handling. It is a perfect balance with
> any OM body, and the focus and aperture lever are just right. One
> should be able to know their lenses intimately w/o looking at them, and
> for me the 85/2, 28/2 and 50/1.2 have shown that special "magic".
> Take care!
> Bob Gries
> < 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 >