Informed choices are usually better but sometimes uniformed choices work out
very well (didn't D. Rumsfeld say that on this list several months ago?)
My memory must have been way off. I was quite certain all three of the 1.2
lenses had been criticized a fair amount for resolution, contrast, AND
bokeh. It would seem that the 50 f1.2 is almost a must have lens (that sure
seems like a new opinion - thanks John & Moose). Now if I can find a nice
silver nosed 50mm f1.2 ... But give me a week and who knows what I'll
remember...
By interchangeable I was referring to focal length, max aperture, size, and
weight (its pretty easy to say a 90mm macro and 100 f2.8 aren't
interchangeable). Clearly people have their preferences among lenses and
wouldn't change one for a similar model and it often isn't resolution or
contrast that is the deciding factor. However maybe I remember that because
it seems too often I'm not able to see the differences that others have ...
-jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Re: WTT 50f1.2 for 55f1.2
> 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..
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|