on 10/23/02 7:26 AM, Robert Gries at rgg@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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.
then he wrote...
> 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".
Hmmm... I didn't run out and look, but the 50/1.2 and the 50/2.0 are pretty
close to the same size, diameterwise at least. I like the 'fatter' feel of
both. Sizewise they're pretty close I think.
--
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 >
|