Welcome to the list, Dizel.
>3.5/28 - a stellar performer!
I agree -- the more I use it, the more I like it! An unsung hero of the OM
System, IMHO.
>2/85 Zuiko Auto-T (obviously MC), also Kiron 80-200/4 for those rare
>ocassions I would ever need anything longer than 85mm).
My 85/2 is a silvernose SC, and it's also one of my favourites, but I see
the 85mm focal length as a kind of "narrow standard". I like very much
135mm's, especially the Zuiko 135/3.5. I also own a Tamron SP 70-210/3.5,
but now I seldom use it -- it's *a lot* heavier and bigger!
>Now one question - maybe someone will have other opinions of it,
>but as an owner of 1.8/50 SC and MC, 1.4/50 SC, I would rate them
>as following:
Ahem, I think I've got *every* variant of the Zuiko 50/1.4 and 50/1.8...
I'm still pending to do a serious comparative test, but I can talk about my
first impressions, both technical and aesthetical.
>1.4/50 is best from 1.4 to 2.8 - 4, after then 1.8 MC is better.
On a "star-test" I did on the MC 50/1.4 and the 'miJ' 50/1.8 (among other
brands), the 1.4 showed a lot of coma and other aberrations at 1.4 - 2; at
2.8 it was only marginally better than the 50/1.8 *wide open*. At 2.8 and
beyond, the 50/1.8 performs great, with excellent resolution, but contrast
is never very high -- I usually prefer the Zuiko 35-70/3.5-4.5, with higher
contrast at 50mm and f/4. On the other hand, the MC 50/1.4 makes beautiful
pictures, even wide open.
About the other versions of the 50/1.4, I think my favourites are the
silvernose SC and the last formulation 'Zuiko' (S/N > 1.1M), each one with
quite different "image style", though. Contrast seems higher than other
50mm Zuikos (safe for the Macro 3.5 ;-). Obviously, flare resistance is
much better in the MC > 1.1M, and I find its colour/tone rendition better.
Seems quite sharp at 2.8, too.
>1.8 SC is worse than both
Still not throughfully tested, but seems somewhat soft -- maybe lower
contrast than the 'miJ', which is the first Zuiko 50mm I had.
>1.4 and 1.8 have completely different bokeh - both give nice
>roundness to image past the zone of acceptable CoC - but I,
>for some strange reason, can't decide which is better.
They have quite different image styles, but I think I prefer the 1.8's
bokeh. It's easy to have the background blurred a lot with f/1.4, but
defocused lightspots show slightly brighter "rings" in any Zuiko 50/1.4.
Size apart, the 40/2 looks much nicer.
BTW, I've got also a couple of Russian rangefinders. Which lenses do you
use with your Leica/Zorki hybrid? I'm impressed with the picture quality of
the Jupiter-8 (50mm F2).
Best regards,
...
Carlos J. Santisteban
<cjss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://cjss.galeon.com>
< 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 >
|