Brian, I think your comments have best expressed how I've felt through this
discussion as well. There seems to be very little objective information to
prove this lens' worth to me. That is not to say subjective sentiments are
not useful, especially if coming from a trusted list member or other. But
about the only objective data I can find is on Gary's lens test site. And I
just can't seem to see the what all the fuss is about when looking at the
facts. Here is the best data figures from his site for the lowly 50/1.8 MIJ
as compared to that for the 50/2 macro.
(cut and paste for 50/1.8 MIJ)
OM-2S with mirror and auto diaphragm prefire, serial number 3694244,
paired comparison with sample below to examine potential production
variation; identical coating
Vignetting = C- @ f/1.8, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture Center Corner
f/1.8 B C
f/2.8 A- B+
f/4 A+ A
f/5.6 A A-
f/8 A A-
f/11 A- B+
f/16 B+ B
Notes: High contrast at f/1.8 to f/2.8 and f/11 to f/16, very high
contrast at f/4 to f/8.
(cut and paste for 50/2 macro)
OM-2000 with mirror and aperture prefire, same lens as above
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 B- B-
f/2.8 B- B
f/4 A- A-
f/5.6 A- A
f/8 A+ A+
f/11 A A-
f/16 A- B+
Notes: Moderate contrast at f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/16, moderately high
contrast at f/8 to f/11.
As you say, most of the discussion has been about hand held photography, as
in the luminous landscape article for example. So for that purpose, and
given the comparisons above, taking into account Gary's evaluation of grade
points, contrast, and considering the slight advantage of maximum lens speed
available for low light situations, it certainly looks to me that the 50/1.8
is the better choice. What am I missing here? To me, the numbers make it
look like a macro lens, not a general all purpose 50mm for hand held
photography.
If you compare the 50/2 to the 50/3.5 macros on Gary's site, the obvious and
about only advantage is the two stops brighter, not that that isn't
significant. But for macro purposes, for me, I'm far more likely to switch
to my 90mm macro if I want the look that wide open shooting gives.
But then, what do I know? I use the Vivitar 55/2.8 for a short lens macro as
it goes to 1:1 without tubes, and use the Vivitar 90/2.5 with accompanying
1:1 extension for a longer macro. I also have the Vivitar 135/2.8 CF that
goes to 1:2 by itself, a set of Vivitar extension tubes, Olympus 7mm tube,
Olympus f=40cm close up, Kiron 55m reversing ring, and a genereic 49mm
reverser. And beside this, the first thing I owned for macro, the Vivitar 2x
1:1 macro focus to put behind the 50mm Zuiko, which is still about as handy
and good as anything I own.
And for really close macro when chasing moving creatures, the C5050 in super
macro mode, held in the hand with LCD flipped out, beats them all by far, if
you don't need it on slide film.
Wayne
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thanks for passing on all the experience with the Zuiko 50/2.
>
> It seems to me that many people value this lens for what it does as a non-
> macro lens. Which is interesting, to say the least, since the lens was
> apparently designed as a macro lens..
>
> I remember somebody in the last 3 or so days (Walt? Winsor?), writing that
> in their opinion, at apertures from 5.6 > 6.3 and on, there is little
difference in
> definition between the f/2 and the f/3.5 macros; and I think this was in
> reference to use as a macro lens. Does somebody else have critical
> experience of the 50/2 as a macro lens?
>
> I value objective measures such as lines per mm, since the personal
opinion
> factor is greatly reduced and you are getting close to facts.
>
> Michael Reichmann's article is interesting, but it has to be seen mainly
as
> the subjective opinion of a very experienced photographer. He compares 13
> lenses, but the pictures he presents us with make it impossible to compare
> apples with apples. Instead of having the different lenses capture exactly
the
> same image so that their performance can be compared on an equal footing,
> every image is of a different subject.
>
> If the same image was used for each, there would be value in him providing
> detailed comments on the finer and important points that illustrate weak
or
> strong points of lens performance. As it is, remarks such as pointing out
that
> a lens blows out highlights, are worth little since this"defect" can be
caused
> by other things such as exposure, printing etc, and one could never know
> what thing contributed what "defect"..
>
> It also looks as though all the shots were made hand-held, which is not a
> good way to get optimum definition..
>
> The review by Mike Johnston also hinted that its macro performance was
> perhaps its weakest area of competence.
>
> Unfortunately, I've never even seen one of these lenses, let alone tested
one.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Brian
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|