Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: WTT 50f1.2 for 55f1.2

Subject: [OM] Re: WTT 50f1.2 for 55f1.2
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:27:15 -0700
Jeffrey Keller wrote:

>I had to do a double take on this one. I didn't think either of the f1.2 
>lenses were especially highly rated for resolution & contrast.
>
Well, that doesn't agree with my understanding. I've never owned any of 
the f1.2 lenses, so I go on what I've read here and Gary's tests. The 
experiences I recall hearing here are mostly like John Lind's post this 
afternoon where the 50/1.2 is praised. Remember, the 50/1.2 wasn't a 
replacement for the 55/1.2, which had already been discontinued for some 
time, but for the 50/1.4, their flagship normal fl lens, which was 
discontinued when the f1.2 came out..

>I guess the main thing is that you see them as interchangeable, so the one 
>with the 
>better contrast is assumed the way to go.
>
Who, me? No I don't see them as interchangeable. The 50mm has better 
resolution almost across the board, as well as higher contrast at all 
apertures.

My big point about contrast was specifically in reference to shooting 
aperture. With "C" level sharpness at f1.2 in all these lenses, focusing 
is not going to be optimally easy in any case, compared to the "B" level 
performance of the last version of the f1.4. So the more contrast, the 
better for focusing.

>Bob Gries tried a silver nose 55 alongside his 50 f1.2 and had a slight 
>preference for the 55.
>
Remember, the 2 versions of the 55/1.2 are different lenses. The 
radioactive elements were there for their optical characteristics. 
Without them, the lens could not be made quite as good.  If you read 
Gary's test of these 2 lenses in paired comparison, you will see that 
the later one had very slightly better overall resolution results and 
consistently better contrast throughout the aperture range. I also know 
that Gary's private test of Tom's early radioactive 50/1.4 showed it to 
be quite a bit better in center resolution than later 50/1.4s before the 
MC versions. Bob's test was against the better performing 55/1.2.

The original request was to trade for a black nose, non radioactive 
55/1.2 and that's what I was writing about.

>Several list members have felt the 1.2 vs 1.4 is not a good trade off.
>
Which f1.2? You are treating them as interchangeable, I don't. As John 
pointed out, one reason some of us don't think it's a good trade-off is 
because the 55/1.2 is a poorer lens and the 50/1.2 is considerablly more 
expensive. If I could get a 50/1.2 in comparable condition for the same 
price as my >1,085,000 50/1.4, I would buy it. At several times the 
price for comparable performance and almost half a stop more speed, I pass.

>There is a list member who strongly believes in the 100 f2.8 even though 
>almost every 90mm 
>macro has higher ratings.
>
Sure, and I said in the post you are replying to "If a loss of perceived 
sharpness (a mixture of resolution, contrast & ?) doesn't bother you or 
is desireable, this might be a good move."  I recognize that sharpness 
isn't everything, but it is quite important to me in a prime 50mm.

>I see the 1.2 lenses as strictly special purpose since I'm happy with the 
>35-xx zooms.
>
I use slower zooms a lot too, but the 50/1.4 is always in the bag for 
when speed is the only way to get the shot. Also, it works really well 
with the Viv 2x macro teleconverter when I don't have a true macro 
along. So for me, those special purposes are ones I value quite a bit.

>I think each potential owner of a 1.2 lens needs to make his own judgement 
>which is better and if they even really need it. Me ... we'll I'm sure I'll 
>need both, one of these days.
>
Well, of course. I just offer my small knowledge and large opinions to 
assist to the extent I may in making those desisions informed. :-)

>Cost of manufacturing drives most design changes.
>
I don't think that was the case in with the 50/1.2. It was intended as a 
flagship lens.

>When you think about the concern over a gram of mercury in thermometers, it's 
>pretty hard to imagine using radioactive glass anymore. Not necessary anymore. 
>
Even higher index, lower dispersion, glass is available now.

An argumentative Moose



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz