Some thoughts that haven't been touched on this time around on this
perennial topic.
You don't specify the version of your 50/1.8 nor which version of a
50.1.4 you would be looking for. You also don't mention in what way you
may be dissatisfied with the current lens or what your primary use/need
for the lens is. The 50/1.8 went through at least 5 distinct versions
and the 50/1.4 at least 3. The earlier versions of both tend to be soft
at or near wide open and the SC versions are, of course, more prone ot
flare. There are 2 different versions of the 55/1.2. The earlier one
with radioactive rare earth elements in the glass yellows with age. The
newer, non-radioactive version doesn't.
If you are interested primarily in 'sharpness' (resolution and
contrast), especially wide open, you should be looking at the later
versions of the 50mm lenses. But, of course, that isn't what everybody
wants. the 55/1.2 is not very sharp or contrasty wide open. Wide open is
where you focus, so part of the focusing advantage of a fast lens,
shallow DOF, is offset by an inability to create a really sharp image to
focus with. If ultimate sharpness is not what you are looking for, one
of the early 50s or the 55 may be your cup of tea.
Doro likes her 55/1.2 exactly because it isn't sharp wide open "...the
atmosphere of intimate softness it gives when used wide open, indoor,
for portraits and such."
Tom Scales likes his very early, radioactive, 50/1.4 "but there is a
warmth to the early lens that I like. Just pleasing to me." Gary chimes
in that this particular lens of Tom's is actually quite sharp in the
center opened up, but that subsequent early 50/1.4s after the rare earth
glass was dropped are pretty soft. Is the warmth that Tom likes the same
special 'silvernose glow' that some others like or the effect of the
rare earth glass yellowing? Who knows.
If you are looking for the best overall combination of resolution and
contrast for general purpose use and speed is important, the 50/1.2 is
tops, with the downside of size/weight and cost. For me, the 50/1.4 with
serial number over 1,085,000 is the best combination of performance over
all apertures, size, weight and cost. The 50/1.8 'miJ' version is very
close, but there is a design/manufacturing problem with later 50/1.8s
you must check for before buying. Many, perhaps even a majority, of the
50/1.8 'MC' version suffer from migration of lubricant into the aperture
blades that causes varying degrees of slow or non return to wide open
after shooting. A lesser, but significant, number of the 'miJ' versions
have the same problem.
For best performance with less need for speed, the 50/2 gets raves from
many listees. Others have noted that its 'bleeding edge' sharpness is
quite unflattering for portraits. Again, it is big, heavy and expensive
compared to the 1.4 and 1.8. If you do a lot of shooting at small
apertures, f8 and beyond, the 50/3.5 may be the best bet. My little
analysis assigning numbers to Gary's letter grades and
averaging/combining resolution and contrast scores was no contest at
f1/2, won by the 50/1.4 from f1.4 to f2.8, by the 50/1.8 from f4 to
f5.6, the 50/2 & 3.5 at f8 and the 50/3.5 at all smaller apertures. Of
course, many of the scores in the middle apertures were very close,
probably closer than sample and testing variation.
You didn't mention any need for extra speed, but some replies did. If
you look carefully at Gary's tests, you will see that none of these
lenses are really sharp wide open, so a shift to faster film may in many
cases give better overall results in the final image than a faster
and/or wide open lens. f1-8 to f1.4 is 3/4 of a stop. f1/4 to f1.2 is
1/2 a stop. 100 iso to 200 iso is a full stop.
If you are looking for some special glow/atmosphere, I think you are
just going to have to try out several lenses. If you really want to find
out which is best for you, drop by Berkeley next time you are down in
the Bay Area and I'll loan you a bag of 50/1.8s and 1/4s covering almost
all the versions to test out. Assuming you have lots of spare time and
nothing better to do with it ;-) . I have lots of time, but better
things to do with it, so I just use the latest 50/1/4 version for
general purpose and the 50/3.5 for flat copy work.
Moose
R. Jackson wrote:
There have been several really interesting replies to this, thank you.
FWIW, my 50mm 1.8 isn't my only lens, it's just my only "standard"
focal-length lens. Right Now I own a few Zuikos. I have an 18mm f3.5,
a 28mm f2.8, my trusty old 50mm f1.8, a 90mm f2 Macro, a 135mm f2.8
and a 35-80mm f2.8 zoom. I was just wondering if people have found the
faster standard lenses worth the added expense. Truthfully, I shoot
about 900f what I shoot with my 35-80mm zoom anymore, although the
90/2 has been gaining ground since I got it. I also just got the 18mm
from one of Tom Scales' auctions and I love how easy it is to focus.
Stopped down, just about everything from a couple of feet to infinity
is in focus. You almost don't have to focus in daylight. It makes
small spaces look really a lot cooler, too. About the only time I find
myself putting the 50 on is when I'm out of light and can't use a
flash. I was just trying to decide if it was worth the money to grab a
1.2 or a 1.4 for that kind of low-light stuff.
-Rob
< 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 >
|